2020 Firm Survey Report

OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.
ANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
Firm Survey Report 2020 01
The Business
of Architecture
2020
OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 2020 BY R E P O R T P R E PA R E D B Y :
The American Institute of Architects Kermit Baker, PhD, Hon. AIA, AIA Chief Economist
1735 New York Avenue, NW Jessica Mentz, Manager, Market & Economic Research
Washington, DC 20006 Jennifer Riskus, Director, Market & Economic Research
aia.org Michele Russo, LEED AP, Managing Director, Research & Practice
AIA Research & Practice, Knowledge and Practice
© 2020 The American Institute of Architects The American Institute of Architects
All rights reserved.
S U R V E Y A D M I N I S T R AT I O N A N D D ATA TA B U L AT I O N :
ISBN: 978-1-57165-016-0 The Farnsworth Group
DESIGN AND PRODUCTION:
Polygraph

Overview 1 Heading into the pandemic-induced

recession, architecture firms had
benefited from several years of healthy
business conditions. With an economic
expansion of record duration and a
strong construction market, firms
were typically more focused on finding
qualified staff and meeting their design
schedules than they were on bringing
in new projects. Having healthy project
backlogs has cushioned the initial impact
of the downturn for many firms.
2 Years of healthy business conditions

encouraged firms to expand and has
helped to create more diversity in the
architectural profession.
3 Increased emphasis on the

sustainability and resiliency of our
building stock has contributed to an
increased share of design activity to be
focused on retrofitting and improving
existing facilities.

Building activity continued to see healthy growth through 2019 In 2019, there was more than $550 billion spent on constructing
FIGURE 1 . 1 :
National spending on nonresidential building, in billions of US dollars, and annual % change and improving nonresidential buildings nationally, and a
comparable amount devoted to building and improving our
owner-occupied and rental housing stock. Between 2011 and
2019, spending on buildings grew by more than $200 billion,
having increased by almost 65% since the depths of the Great
Recession. Revenue at architecture firms 1 has reflected this
$600 25%
overall increase in construction activity. Net billings at firms
(which exclude pass-throughs and reimbursables) increased
18.8% $552 over 40% nationally between 2017 and 2019, and more than
20%
$530 doubled since the low point of the last industry cycle in 2011.
$500 $501 14.8% $504 (F IGUR E 1.1)
12.7% $487
15%
$463
$453 Construction activity has been significantly slowed by the
$434 8.7% international pandemic, which has lowered the demand for
8.1% 10%
6.7%
$400 $394 many types of facilities not only in the U.S. but internationally,
$390 5.3%
7.5% and therefore has dramatically reduced demand for design
ANNUAL % CHANGE
$355 $362 5%
$346 $348 5.2% services in most building sectors. According to the AIA’s
BILLIONS OF $
$337 3.6% 4.0%

2.2% Architecture Billings Index (ABI), the spring and early summer
$300 0% months of 2020 saw some of the steepest declines in billings at
architecture firms since the index was introduced 25 years ago.2
-3.2%
-5%
Larger firms continue to dominate the profession
$200
-10%
By national standards, the architecture profession is comprised
of an unusually large share of small businesses. Of the
approximately 19,000 AIA member-owned architecture firms
-13.3% -15%
in 2019, over a quarter were sole practitioners, and 60% had
$100
fewer than five employees on their payroll. Only about 6.5% of
-20%
-19.8%
1 For this report, information is reported for those architecture firms where an AIA member has
$0 -25% an ownership position. Research conducted by the AIA estimates that these firms generate
almost two-thirds of architectural and related services revenue, according to the U.S. Census
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bureau’s quarterly services surveys.
2 ABI results are available monthly on the AIA website. An extensive review of the performance
of the ABI in predicting future levels of construction activity: Designing the Construction
Source: US Census Bureau Future: Reviewing the Performance and Extending the Applications of the AIA’s Architecture
Billings Index is also available at no charge on the AIA’s website.
NOTE: ALL DATA IN THIS REPORT WERE REPORTED FOR THE YEAR 2019, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS NOT REFLECTED IN THESE DATA.

Firms with 50+ employees account for half Midsize firms account for growing share firms had 50 or more employees, with 2.5% with 100 or more
FIGURE 1 . 2A : FIG URE 1.2 B :
of revenue and staffing nationally of architecture firm billings employees on their payroll. On average, there are 12 employees
Percent of all firms, staff and gross billings by firm Percent of billings by firm size for 2005, 2015, for each firm nationally.
size for 2019 and 2019
Despite this general fragmentation across the profession, larger
2019 share of firms 2005 share of billings firms continue to have an outsize impact on the profession.
2019 share of staff 2015 share of billings Architecture firms with 100 or more employees account for 30%
2019 share of billings 2019 share of billings of employment nationally, and 30% of total billings. Firms with
100% 100%
50 or more employees account for over half of employment in
private practice, and almost half of revenue generated.
90% 90%
(F IGUR E 1.2A)
80% 80% In 2005, during a period of very strong construction activity,

75.2%
firms with fewer than 10 employees accounted for 16.5% of
70% 70% total billings at architecture firms. That share has been steadily
eroding, and by the end of 2019, stood at just 12.8% of billings
across the profession. (F IGUR E 1.2B)
60% 60%
51.9% 51.9% 51.3% Diversity continues on the upswing

49.1% 49.1%
50% 50%
Women and members of a racially and/or ethnically diverse
demographic group continue to account for an increased share
40% 38.1% 40% 38.1% of architectural positions at the nation’s architecture firms.
33.3% Between 2008 and 2019, the women’s share of architectural
31.7%
30.0% positions increased from 28% to 37%, while the share from a
30% 30%
racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group increased
18.0% 18.5% from 22% to 32%. However, in spite of these impressive gains,
20% 20% 16.5% 15.4%
the architecture profession continues to be underrepresented
12.8% 12.8%
along key demographic characteristics. In the broader labor
10% 6.3% 10% force in 2019, 47% were women and the share of members
of a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group was
0% 0% approaching 40%.3 So, while the gap in composition between
Small firms Midsize firms Large firms Small firms Midsize firms Large firms
(1-9 employees) (10-49 employees) (50 or more (1-9 employees) (10-49 employees) (50 or more
employees) employees)
3 Source: Current Population Survey for 2019, US Census Bureau.

Diversity among architecture staff is increasing, but still lags national workforce architecture and the broader national workforce is shrinking by
FIGURE 1 . 3 :
Women and members of a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group as percentage of all architecture staff gender as well as by racial/ethnic compositions, it has not yet
disappeared. (F IGUR E 1.3)
Share women

Share of members of a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group
These gaps are expected to shrink even more in the coming
years as more women and members of racially and/or ethnically
diverse demographic groups enter the architectural profession.
In 2019, 37% of all architecture staff were women, as were 46%
50% of emerging professionals at firms on a path toward licensure
and 53% of architecture students working at firms. Likewise,
in 2019, almost half (49%) of emerging professionals on a
licensure path were members of a racially and/or ethnically
40% 37%
diverse demographic group, as were 43% of students working at
35% firms, even though only 32% of overall architecture staff fell into
these categories.
32% 32%

30%
Retrofitting the existing building stock
28% 28%
30% 27%
While designing new facilities is typically considered a core
25%
competency of architects, renovating existing buildings is an
22% 22% increasing share of the workload at a typical firm. Even during
21% 21%
20% the building boom running up to the Great Recession, U.S.
20% architecture firms reported that, on average, over a third of their
billings were for work on—or additions to—existing buildings. As
the Great Recession slowed the demand for new buildings, the
share of billings from work on the existing building stock rose to
around 45%.
10%
However, even as the construction market slowly recovered
with the economic expansion following the Great Recession, the
share of design activity devoted to existing buildings held steady.
Part of the reason for this is that there was a significant glut
0%
2005 2008 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
of underutilized buildings in many markets across the country,
which created less of a need to build new ones. Additionally, with
a growing focus on making the building stock more sustainable,

80%
Despite healthy new construction market, share of spending on existing buildings has been increasing there was growing motivation on the part of government,
FIGURE 1 . 4 :
Renovations, rehabilitations, additions, and historic preservation as percentage of firm building* design billings nonprofits, and private property owners to upgrade the existing
building stock.
70%

By 2019, the share of architecture firm billings devoted to work
on existing buildings climbed to over 49%. There are several
reasons why this share is expected to remain at or near this
60%
elevated level for some time. Growth in the U.S. population and
economy are expected to continue to moderate in coming years.
Also, the continued emphasis on the sustainability of the building
49.3% stock will encourage investment in existing buildings. (FIGURE 1.4)
50%

45.0% 44.4%
44.2% 44.0% With growing concerns over building design emerging from the
pandemic, there will likely be a significant increase in retrofit
activity. Given growing public awareness of public health risks
40%
35.1%
in general, it’s likely that most facilities where customers or
34.4% employees generally are in close proximity will need some redesign
to accommodate these concerns. Additionally, with almost six
million buildings nationally, according to estimates from the Energy
30%
Information Administration, this should add up to a lot of redesign
activity. Facilities that are likely to be priorities include offices (over
a million buildings nationally), retail and food service establishments
(about one million), educational facilities (400,000), amusement,
20%
recreational facilities and other building of public assembly (almost
400,000), healthcare facilities (approaching 200,000), and
lodging facilities (also approaching 200,000).
10% Many of these buildings not only need to comply with emerging
public health concerns, but independently would profit from
upgrading. An estimated 40% of the national building stock is
0%
over 50 years old. Many of these facilities would benefit from
systems upgrades, exterior replacements and enhancements, the
2005 2008 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
renovation of key internal spaces and other design upgrades that
architects could provide.
* The value of nonconstruction-related services is excluded from this calculation.

Firm and This chapter overviews the key

findings related to firm and
staff profile
staff profiles, including data
and trends on firm disciplines,
firm characteristics, staffing,
demographics, sustainability
credentials, firm planning, and
firm practices.

Share of multidisciplinary architecture firms decreases for the first time in over Firm disciplines offered
FIGURE 2 . 1 :
10 years as the share of single-disciplinary firms increases • 55% of architecture firms are single discipline, up five
% of firms
percentage points from 2017 and the first time in over 10
Architecture: Single-discipline firm years that the share of single-discipline firms increased.
Architecture: Multidisciplinary firm (F IGUR E 2.1)
Other (e.g., consulting, design-build, planning, interior design)
• The percentage of single-discipline firms is especially high
among smaller firms and those specializing in residential
work.
100%
6% 6%
7% 9% 7% 8% • Over half of firms offered architecture (99%),
interior design (58%), zoning/code compliance (54%),
90%
and predesign services (53%) in 2019, similar to the
design-related disciplines and specialties offered by firms
80% 32% in 2015 and 2017.
36% 39%
42% 42%
70%
40% • 45% of firms offered planning services in 2019, a decrease
of six percentage points from 2017.
60%
Firm characteristics
50% • 35% of firms are S corporations, up six percentage points

from 2017, while 18% of firms are sole proprietorships, down
four percentage points from 2017.
40%
• 45% of firms reported being federally recognized as a small
62% business in 2019, a decrease of 13 percentage points since
30% 57% 55%
51% 51% 50% 2017, while 57% of firms reported being recognized as a
20% small business at a state or local level.
• Architecture firms reported an average of three permanent

10% domestic offices in 2019, a decrease of one office since 2017.
0%
2008 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Architecture staff continue to account for the majority of architecture firm employees Staffing: full-time employees
FIGURE 2 . 2 :
Averages across all architecture firms, weighted by number of positions • Firm size increased significantly in 2019 to an average of
64 employees, from 50 employees in 2017.
• The share of architecture firm employees that are

architecture staff has generally held steady in recent years,
3% averaging 61% in 2019.
Architecture staff 61%
Technical staff (nonbillable)*** • The percentage of other design professionals
3% (e.g., engineers, interior designers) continued to decrease in
Other nondesign 2019, falling to 18%.
professionals (billable)**
13% 22% • Non-licensed architecture staff accounted for an average of
Nontechnical staff Licensed architects 14% of architecture firm employees in 2019, an increase of
(nonbillable)* (not including principals/partners) six percentage points since 2017.
Other staff 19%
Other design staff 2% Staffing: contract employees, part-time employees,
Landscape architects 2% and consultants
Planners 2% • 53% of firms’ contract staff are architecture staff, a
3% Principals/partners 9% 16-percentage-point increase from 2017 that resembles
Certified/registered interior designers 2015.
3%
Uncertified/unregistered interior designers • 30% of firms’ contract staff are other design professionals,
a decrease of 11 percentage points from 2017.
Engineers 6%
• Only 2% of architecture staff were reported as part-time in
Other design professionals 16% 2019, a similar share of staff as in recent years.
(including both licensed Emerging professionals on
and unlicensed staff) 18% the path to licensure • Use of all types of consultants increased in 2019, with
2% 14% building performance model consultants seeing the largest
Students Non-licensed architecture increase from 2017. (F IGUR E 2.2)
staff not on licensure path
* e.g., controller, bookkeeper, accounting clerk, business development manager, marketing manager/assistant, human resources director/manager,
office manager, administrative assistant, receptionist, librarian, in-house legal counsel
** Professional staff other than architects, designers, or other design professionals who are typically billed directly on projects
(e.g., healthcare professionals, educational professionals)
*** e.g., CAD manager, IT manager/director


Share of women and members of a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group in architecture Demographics
FIGURE 2 . 3 :
staff positions continues to expand, although there remain disparities in leadership roles • The share of female architecture staff continued to increase
Share of architecture staff by position in 2019, rising to 37% overall. (F IGUR E 2.3)
2008
• While this figure has continued to increase over the last
2019
decade, there continues to be a large disparity of women in
leadership roles — they account for just 21% of principals/
partners.
100% • 32% of architecture staff self-identified as a member of
W OM E N M E M B E R S OF A RAC IALLY
A N D OR E T HN I CALLY DIVERSE a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group in
90% DE M OG R A PHIC GROUP 2019, a 10-percentage-point increase from a decade ago.
• Looking toward the future, staffing makeup will likely

80%
continue to be more diverse as self-identified members
of a racially and/or ethnically diverse demographic group
70%
accounted for 49% of emerging professionals and 43%
of students in 2019; both of which have increased over 15
60% percentage points since 2008.
53%
49%
50% 46% Sustainability credentials
42% 43%
41% 40%
37%
• 65% of firms reported having some payroll staff in their
40%
34% 34% office that maintain specialty sustainability or resilience
32%
28%
30% 30% credentials in 2019, with large firms and institutional
30% 26% 27% 26% firms being more likely to report having staff with these
21% 22% 22%
credentials.
20% 17%
14% • 14% of firms reported plans to use training in-house for
11%
10% 8% existing staff to acquire sustainability and resilience skills on
staff, with large firms more likely to do so than smaller firms.
0%
All Principals/ Licensed Non-licensed Emerging Students All Principals/ Licensed Non-licensed Emerging Students
architecture partners architects architecture professionals architecture partners architects architecture professionals
staff staff not on on licensure staff staff not on on licensure
licensure path path licensure path path

Ownership transition plans are common among large firms while small firms Firm planning
FIGURE 2 . 4 :
are more likely to have a written business plan • There is a significant divide between smaller firms and
% of firms with types of plans in place Small firms (under 10 employees) larger firms in the formation of an ownership transition plan,
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) written business plan, and business continuity plan.
Large firms (50 or more employees)
(F IGUR E 2.4 )
9% • Ownership transition plan: 88% of firms with 50 or more

Ownership transition plan 59%
employees reported having an ownership transition plan,
88%
compared with 59% of firms with 10 to 49 employees, and
30%
Written business plan 48%
just 9% of firms with fewer than 10 employees.
67%
• Written business plan: 30% of small firms had a written
15% business plan in 2019, as well as nearly half (48%) of
Business continuity plan 42%
midsized firms and two-thirds of firms with 50 or more
64%
employees.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% • Of the firms with a business continuity plan in 2019,
95% reported having systems in place for telework-ready
Systems in place for telework-ready employees was most Small firms (under 10 employees) employees as well as 86% reporting cloud or off-network
FIGURE 2 . 5 :
commonly included in business continuity plans Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) storage of files. (F IGUR E 2.5)
Large firms (50 or more employees)
% of firms that have a business continuity plan — Large firms were more likely to report having an
emergency preparedness plan compared with smaller
Telework-ready 92% firms, with 78% of large firms having one.
employees 98%
96%
Cloud or off-network 85%
storage of files 87%
85%
Emergency 33%
preparedness plan 60%
74%
31%
Hazard insurance 44%
67%
Cyber attack 25%
recovery plan 52%
63%
Disaster 26%
recovery plan 37%
78%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig 2.6 Figure 2.6 - revised OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
Internal equitable and inclusive practices are more standard at midsize and large firms
Units:
THE A MER ICAN %TEofOFfirms
INST I TU A R CH I T ECT S
Internal equitable and inclusive practices are more standard at midsize and large firms Internal equitable and inclusive practices
FIGURE 2 .6 :
% of firms • 90% of firms with 50 or more employees reported having
some type of internal equitable and inclusive practices in
Small firms (under 10 employees)
place, compared with 85% of firms with 10 to 49 employees
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees)
Large firms (50 or more employees) and about 37% of firms with fewer than 10 employees.
• The top internal practice reported was equitable pay policy,

regardless of firm size, with 23% of small firms reporting
23% having a policy in place, as well as 66% of midsize firms,
Equitable pay policy and review procedures 66%
72% and 72% of large firms.
Leadership development/preparation opportunities designed 14%
53% — 14% of small firms also reported that they provide
to increase diversity and inclusion in leadership positions 67% leadership development/preparation opportunities
Aligning equity, diversity, and inclusion 14% designed to increase diversity and inclusion in leadership
29%
with business goals and objectives 47% positions, and 14% also reported that they work to align
11% equity, diversity, and inclusion with their business goals
Statement on diversity 42%
50%
and objectives.
Retention strategies designed to help 10% — At least half of large firms also reported that their internal
36%
retain a diverse and inclusive workforce 47% equitable and inclusive practices include leadership
Training on topics such as anti-bias, antidiscrimination, 8% development/preparation opportunities designed to
36%
implicit bias, intercultural competency 52%
increase diversity and inclusion in leadership positions
5%
(67%); training on topics such as anti-bias, anti-
Employment of people who have diverse abilities 12% discrimination, implicit bias, and intercultural competency
33%
(52%); and a statement on diversity (50%). (F IGUR E 2.6)
4%
Office programs with a focus on global/ 10%
international diversity and inclusion 31%
A staff member dedicated to managing 3%

8%
equity, diversity, and inclusion priorities 28%
Established metrics, data collection on inclusive- 3%

12%
related practices, program or initiatives 35%
2%
An internal employee resource/affinity group 12%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig 2.7 Figure 2.7 - revised OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
Title: External equitable and inclusive practices are being adopted differently across firms of
different
THE A MER ICAN INST sizes
I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S
Units: % of firms
External equitable and inclusive practices are being adopted differently across firms of different sizes External equitable and inclusive practices
FIGURE 2 . 7 :
% of firms • Over 90% of firms with 50 or more employees reported having
some type of external equitable and inclusive practices in-place
compared with 58% of firms with 10 to 49 employees and less
Large firms (50 or more employees) than 30% of firms with fewer than 10 employees.
— The types of external practices most commonly used by firms

vary widely by firm size, with firms with 10 or more employees
Community outreach related to diversity and inclusion 10% most commonly reporting use of employee perception/
(e.g., links between the office and educational institutions, 22%
government, identity-based organizations) 45% satisfaction/engagement surveys, while small firms cited
10%
community outreach and participation in cultural events.
Participation in cultural events (e.g., Black History Month, 17%
Hispanic Heritage Month, Pride Week) 50% — Midsize firms were also likely to report offering community
8%
outreach related to diversity and inclusion, K–12 education
K-12 education career awareness activities in your community
targeting underrepresented youth in the profession 20% career awareness activities in their community targeting
36%
underrepresented youth in the profession, and employee
7% recruitment strategies designed to increase racial and ethnic
Intercultural competence, awareness-building,
13%
and community engagement diversity and inclusion.
28%
7% — At least half of large firms reported that they use employee

Higher education career awareness activities in your community 14%
targeting underrepresented youth in the profession 19% recruitment strategies designed to increase racial and
6% ethnic diversity and inclusion (50%), employee perception/
Employee recruitment strategies designed to increase
racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion
23% satisfaction/engagement surveys (67%), and participation
50%
in cultural events like Black History Month and Pride Week
5% (50%) as part of their external equitable and inclusive
Strategies to ensure supply chain equity 6%
16% practices. (F IGUR E 2.7 )
5%
Employee perceptions/satisfaction/engagement survey 25%
67%
Incentives, performance measures for management linked 3%
to the achievement of organizational equity, diversity 9%
and inclusion goals 12%
People managers held accountable for equitable and 2%

inclusion-related tasks or outcomes in the performance 4%
management process 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Client satisfaction
• Few small firms have surveyed clients regarding satisfaction
(37%) compared with large firms (79%).
Quality Assurance/Quality Control processes

• 52% of firms have a Quality Assurance (QA) or Quality Control
(QC) processes in place with nearly all large firms (93%) having
one in place.
• Of firms with QA/QC processes in place, checklists are included

in 77% of firms, while 56% of firms with these processes in
place review for QA/QC prior to major milestones, and 33% of
firms review intermittently as needed.
For more detailed data on the topics covered in this chapter, see
Appendix tables 1.1–1.31.

Firm billings This chapter reviews the key findings

and trends related to financial
and finances
aspects of architecture firms,
including billings and profitability,
project and billing methods, client
types, pro bono work, and financial
indicators.

Architecture firm billings remained strong through 2019 Billings and profitability
FIGURE 3 . 1 :
Billings at architecture firms, in billions of US dollars • Architecture firm gross billings totaled $63.8 billion in 2019,
Net billings rising at an inflation-adjusted rate of 16.6% between 2017
Pass-throughs, reimbursables, and other revenue and 2019.
$70 $63.8
$60
• 71% of total firm billings in 2019 were from net billings,
similar to 2017, while 26% were from pass-throughs/
$50 $45.0
$44.3 reimbursables, and 3% were from other revenue.
$40.6
$40 $45.6 (F IGUR E 3.1)
$31.1
$30 $28.5 $26.0
$32.4
$28.4
$20 $23.4
$21.1
$10 $18.2
$15.8 $12.2 $12.6
$4.9 $7.7
$0
2008 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
FIGURE 3 . 2 : Despite a modest decline in profitability, architecture firms remain prosperous

(See each data set for units) • Net billings per employee averaged $159,000 in 2019 and
were generally highest at midsize firms.
T O TA L N E T B I L L I N GS , AVERAGE NET BILLINGS AVERAGE FIRM PROFITABILITY • Firm profitability as a share of net billings averaged 13.6%
IN B IL L I ON S OF U S D OL L A RS PER EMPLOYEE AS A SH ARE OF NET BILLINGS*
$50 $180,000 20%
in 2019, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points from 2017.
$45.6 (F IGUR E 3.2)
$159,000
$150,000
$40 14.9% — Firms with a commercial/industrial specialization
15% 13.6%
$32.4 $115,000
13.4% reported the highest profitability at 14.8%, and larger
$120,000 $108,000
$30 $28.4 firms also tended to report higher profitability relative to
$90,000 10% smaller firms.
$20
$60,000
5%
$10
$30,000
$0 $0 0%
2015 2017 2019 2015 2017 2019 2015 2017 2019
* Firms were asked to compute profit as a percentage of net billings after all compensation was paid (including owners’/principals’ compensation),
but before paying out any taxes, bonuses, or profit-sharing
Fig 3.3 Pie chart OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
Title: More than two thirds of architecture firm billings are billed
using
THE A MER ICAN stipulated
INST I TU sum,
TE OF A R CH I T ECT S
Firm Survey Report
professional fee plus reimbursable 2020 18
expense methods
Units: % of firm billings by billing method, 2019
More than two thirds of architecture firm billings are billed using Projects and billing methods
FIGURE 3 . 3 :
stipulated sum, professional fee plus reimbursable expense methods • 84% of gross billings at firms in 2019, on average, were
% of firm billings by billing method, 2019 from projects where the firm served as the architect of
record, similar to 2017 and 2015.
• While the stipulated sum (fixed fee) billing method remained

most popular in 2019 (accounting for 38% of firm billings),
billing clients by professional fees plus reimbursable
expenses accounted for 32% of firm billings, an increase of
1.8% four percentage points from 2017. (F IGUR E 3.3)
Percentage of construction cost
not to exceed fixed amount — The share of firm billings billed by the professional fees
0.8% plus reimbursable expenses method was highest at firms
Fee per square foot with a commercial/industrial specialization (46% of
10.0% billings).
Percentage of
construction cost — Smaller firms primarily relied on working at an hourly rate
in 2019, with 41% of their billings being derived this way.
• The median backlog of projects among firms was reported

37.7%
as three to six months, which trended higher among firms
Stipulated sum (fixed fee)
specializing in institutional work.
18.1%
Hourly rate
(with or without
agreed maximum)
31.6%
Professional fee plus
reimbursable expenses
Fig 3.4 Stacked to 100% bar charts, grouped by firm specialization and color coded to differentiate between new and repeat clients
Title: Architecture firms with a residential specialization have the largest share of billings from new clients
Units: % of firm billings by work source, 2019
Architecture firms with a residential specialization have the largest share of billings from new clients Client types
FIGURE 3 . 4 :
% of firm billings by work source, 2019 • Billings derived from state or local government clients
New clients, competitive selection continued to trend up (23% overall vs. 21% in 2017) while
New clients, noncompetitive selection billings from developers have trended down (17% overall vs.
Repeat clients, competitive selection 23% in 2017).
Repeat clients, noncompetitive selection
• New clients continued to account for about 30% of firm
billings in 2019, with 70% derived from repeat clients.
100% (F IGUR E 3.4 )
17.0% 20.5%
— Firms with a residential specialization reported the largest
90%
20.9% 24.3% share of billings from new clients (46%), while firms with
an institutional specialization reported the smallest share
80% (27%).
10.8%
8.6% 6.1%
— Firm billings from noncompetitive selection for clients
70%
continued its recent decline, falling from 54% of billings
21.7% in 2017 to 49% in 2019.
23.5%
60%
30.3% 35.6% — Smaller firms reported deriving a larger share of
billings from repeat clients, with most being through a
7.2%
50% noncompetitive selection process.
40%
30%
46.8% 48.7%
20% 40.2%
37.8%
10%
0%
All firms Residential Commercial / Industrial Institutional
FI R M SPE CI ALI ZAT I ON
Fig 3.5 Stacked bar charts grouped by firm size, with total % on top of bars
Title: Architecture firms devote an average of 9% of their billable hours to

pro bono work Firm Survey Report 2020 20
Units: Average percent of billable hours to pro bono work, by type of pro
bono work, 2019
Architecture firms devote an average of 9% of their billable hours to pro bono work Pro bono work
FIGURE 3 . 5 :
Average percent of billable hours to pro bono work, by type of pro bono work, 2019 • More than half (52%) of firms reported conducting pro bono
Pro bono work for noncompensated services for for-profit clients work in 2019, a similar proportion to recent years, with larger
Pro bono work for a nonprofit entity or public entity serving social needs firms more likely to report conducting pro bono work than
smaller firms.
• 6.1% of billable hours at firms that did pro bono work in

2019, on average, went toward pro bono work for nonprofit
12% clients, while 3.8% went toward work for for-profit clients.
10.8% — Small firms typically did less pro bono work in 2019, but
tended to devote a larger share of billable hours to it when
10% they did. (F IGUR E 3.5)
9.4% 9.3%
4.0%
8% 3.1%
3.6%
6.8%
6%
3.0%
4%
6.8% 6.2%
5.8%
2%
3.8%
0%
All firms Small firms Midsize firms Large firms
(1-9 employees) (10-49 employees) (50 or more employees)

Marketing and business development

• The average share of firm billings going toward staff costs
for marketing and business development decreased slightly
to 9% in 2019 from 10% in 2017.
• The percentage of net billings allocated toward direct

expenses for marketing and business development also
decreased to 4% in 2019 from 6% in 2017.
Net worth
• $908,000 was reported as the average net worth of an
architecture firm in 2019.
• Firms with an institutional specialization reported the

highest net worth, averaging $1,454,000, while firms with a
residential specialization averaged $429,000.
Business loans/bad debt

• The average amount of business loans/debt carried by firms
in 2019 was $70,000.
• Institutional firms, while having a higher net worth, also

reported the highest amount of business loans/debt carried
by the firm, averaging $107,000.
• The average amount of bad debt written off by firms

decreased to $13,500 in 2019 from $17,000 in 2017.
• Firms with a commercial/industrial specialization wrote off

more bad debts than did firms of other specializations in
2019, averaging $18,000.
Contract agreements
• More institutional and commercial/industrial firms use AIA
contract documents than do firms of other specializations,
which are more likely to use custom internal agreements.

Construction This chapter overviews the work

of architecture firms. Specifically
sectors served
included are findings around billings
by sector, construction type,
residential projects, resilient and
green projects, and post-occupancy
evaluation work.
Fig 4.1 Pie chart, with section totals next to appropriate section (like in 2018)
Title: More than half of architecture firm billings are from institutional work, primarily
education
THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R projects
CH I T ECT S
Units: % of firm billings, 2019
More than half of architecture firm billings are from institutional work, primarily education projects Billings by construction sector
FIGURE 4. 1 :
% of firm billings, 2019 • Architecture firms continued to derive the largest share
of their billings from institutional projects in 2019, with
just over half of their billings coming from projects in that
category (52%). (F IGUR E 4 .1)
• K-12 education projects continued to trend upward and

RESIDENTIAL 17.5% accounted for 14% of all firms’ gross billings in 2019,
9.9% COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL 24.5% followed by college/university education projects (12%), and
12.0% office projects (12%).
Multifamily residential
Office
7.6% 4.7% • The shares of gross billings from both residential and
Single-family residential Hospitality commercial/industrial projects declined from 2017 to 2019,
2.3% with multifamily residential projects seeing the largest
4.3%
Nonconstruction projects and activities decline.
Retail, food services, warehouses, etc.
4.1%
2.0% • Billings by firm specialization: At firms specializing in
Other construction projects
Manufacturing residential work, 45% of their billings were derived from
0.1%
single-family work and 39% were derived from multifamily
Communications
1.4% work.
0.9% Distribution/warehousing
Justice (e.g., corrections, courthouses) • Billings by firm specialization: Commercial/industrial firms’
1.3% 13.6% billings were mostly split between office (26%), hospitality
Religious (18%), and retail, food services, warehouses, etc. (15%).
K–12 education
1.9%
• Billings by firm specialization: Institutional firms’ billings
Cultural (e.g., museums)
2.4% 12.1% were primarily derived from K-12 education projects (24%),
Recreational (e.g., sports Higher education (college/university) college/university education projects (20%), and healthcare
centers, theme parks) projects (11%).
2.9% 10.9%
Transportation (e.g., airports, Healthcare INSTITUTIONAL 51.7%
5.5%
rail, bus, mass transit)
Other government/civic
(e.g., post office, federal office buildings)
Bar chart grouped by housing type

Fig 4.3 Firm Survey Report 2020 24
Title: Architecture firms continue to see the share of their
residential billings from new multifamily housing increase
Fig 4.2 Stacked
Units: % to of 100% bar chart,
residential grouped by firm specialization
billings
Firms with an institutional specialization report the largest share of Construction type
FIGURE 4. 2 : Title: Firms with an institutional specialization report the largest
work from renovations and retrofits, versus new construction • The share of firm billings from new construction projects
share of work from renovations and retrofits, versus new
% of firm billings, 2019
construction decreased to 49% in 2019 from 54% in 2017.
New construction projects
Units: % of firm billings,
Renovations, 2019retrofits; additions to existing structures; and/or historic preservation activities
rehabilitations, — The share of firm billings from renovations and additions
Other nonconstruction-related services
both increased by two percentage points from 2017
3.8% 1.6% 1.7% 5.2% to 2019, rising to 31% and 13% of overall billings,
100%
respectively.
80% 40.4%
41.4% — Firms with a residential specialization reported the largest
47.4% 49.9% share of billings from new construction projects (58%).
60%
— Firms with an institutional specialization reported the
40%
largest share of billings from renovations, rehabilitations,
retrofits, additions to existing structures, and historic
58.0% 56.9%
20% 48.8% 44.9% preservation projects (50%). (F IGUR E 4 .2)
0% Residential projects
All firms Residential Commercial / Industrial Institutional
• At firms that had billings from residential projects in
FIRM SPE CI ALI ZAT I ON
2019, 60% of residential billings were derived from new
multifamily housing units, while 21% were from new single-
FIGURE 4. 3 : Architecture firms continue to see the share of their residential family housing units. (F IGUR E 4 .3)
billings from new multifamily housing increase
% of residential billings • The remaining 19% of residential billings were derived from
100% 2015 renovations, remodels, and alterations to existing housing
2017 units (13%), and additions to existing housing units (6%).
2019
80%
• Larger firms reported deriving a greater share of billings
56% 60%
from multifamily projects, while smaller firms did more
60% 52% single-family work, renovations, and additions.
40%
24%
21% 21%
20% 16% 17%
13%
8% 6% 6%
0%
Construction of new Construction of new Renovations/remodels/alterations Additions to
multifamily housing units single-family housing units of existing housing units existing housing units
2 Pie charts
Fig 4.4 OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.16 / CONSTRUCTION SECTORS SERVED P.22 / PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY TRENDS P.26 / INTERNATIONAL WORK P.33 / METHODOLOGY P.38 / APPENDIX P.41
Title: Three quarters of new multifamily housing units designed

by firms are less than 1,200 square feet
Units: % of single-family and multifamily housing units by size,
of housing units begun in 2019
Three quarters of new multifamily housing units designed by firms are less than 1,200 square feet • The mean number of single-family housing units started at
FIGURE 4. 4 :
% of single-family and multifamily housing units by size, of housing units begun in 2019 firms that began work on residential projects in 2019 was 7.8,
multifamily was 62.7, and additions/renovations was 17.8.
New single-family homes New multifamily homes
Less than 1,800 square feet Less than 1,200 square feet • 42% of single-family housing units started in 2019 were
1,800 to 3,999 square feet 1,200 to 1,799 square feet from 1,800 to 3,999 square feet, while 72% of new
4,000 square feet or more 1,800 square feet or more multifamily units started were less than 1,200 square feet.
(F IGUR E 4 .4 )
Resilient and green projects

• More than a third (36%) of firms’ construction contract
10.3% value for residential projects in 2019, and 29% of firms’
construction contract value for nonresidential projects, was
26.6%
from buildings designed with qualities of resilience above
31.0% code minimum.
17.4%
• Firms also reported that 25% of their construction contract
value for residential projects in 2019 was from buildings
New New designed to meet or exceed a performance/sustainability/
single-family multifamily
homes homes health rating standard (e.g., LEED, WELL, RELi), as was 23%
of their construction contract value for nonresidential projects.
Post-occupancy evaluations
72.3% • Overall, just 14% of firms reported that they conducted
post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) in 2019.
42.4%
— POEs were conducted 25% of the time, on average,
which was highest for firms with a residential
specialization (40%).
— POEs most frequently consisted of contacting the owner

to see how things are going and surveying building
occupants on satisfaction.


Practice and This chapter outlines the key

findings related to practice and
technology
technology trends, including services
and methods, research, BIM, and
technology and software.
trends

Basic design services dominance increases as the top source of gross billings Services
FIGURE 5. 1 :
% of firm billings • Basic design services continued to dominate as a top source
of gross billings in 2019 (71%), a six-percentage-point
increase from 2017. (F IGUR E 5.1)
1%
Other
0%
Operations and maintenance services
3% 9%
Integrated project delivery services (IPD) Planning and predesign services
4%
Construction services
6%
Nonarchitectural design services
6%
Expanded design services
71%
Basic design services

Large and mid-sized firms use a multitude of performance evaluation methods Performance evaluation methods
FIGURE 5. 2 :
Methods used to monitor/evaluate actual building performance, % of firms • Out of firms with gross billings from operations and
Small firms (under 10 employees) maintenance services, building performance is typically
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) monitored via an occupant survey (48%) or energy model
Large firms (50 or more employees) calibration/monitoring (44%).
— Firms with an institutional specialization were more likely

to report using commissioning/retro commissioning to
48% evaluate building performance (59%) than other firms.
Occupant survey(s) 41%
66% — Large and midsize firms reported using a multitude of
Energy model calibration 39% performance evaluation methods, with 40% or more
52%
and/or monitoring
55%
using occupant surveys, energy model calibration/
monitoring, building controls, and commissioning/retro
34%
Building controls 48% commissioning. (F IGUR E 5.2)
52%
Project delivery methods
Commissioning/ 24%
retro commissioning 57% • Traditional design-bid-build continued to dominate as a
59%
top delivery method, even with the nine-percentage-point
Overall benchmarking
19% decrease in share of billings from 2017 to 59%.
27%
and tracking 55%
• Alternatively, construction manager as constructor increased
15% by eight percentage points from 2017 to account for 19% of
Monitor energy meters 18%
17% billings overall in 2019.
Water consumption/ 11%

monitoring 19% Design charettes
21%
• Design charettes are the most frequently incorporated
4%
Dashboard 11% practice in firms’ 2019 projects (46%) followed by standard/
28% documented project delivery processes (33%).
Portable/temporary light 4%
5% • Nearly all firms with 50 or more employees reported
or temperature meters
10% incorporating design charettes into their 2019 projects (95%)
compared with 33% of firms with fewer than 10 employees.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Integration of research into practice varies widely by size of firm, but overall more firms Research
FIGURE 5. 3 :
are activley engaging in practice-relevant research • Nearly three quarters (72%) of firms were actively engaging
% of firms in practice-relevant research in 2019, up six percentage
points from 2017.
Large firms (50 or more employees) — While integration varies widely by firm size, literature
reviews (44%), case studies (43%), and promoting
a culture of knowledge sharing (40%) were the most
We use literature reviews or consume existing 43%
46% commonly cited research engagement occurring in firms.
researchon an ad hoc basis depending on the project 52%
(F IGUR E 5.3)
We save our past projects as case 40%
studies to revisit/analyze 56%
45% • Nearly all firms that applied for a Research & Development
33% tax credit within the last two years received one (84%), only
We promote a culture of knowledge sharing 60%
69% a slight decrease from 2017.
We use research on products to inform our project 36%
specifications (e.g., academic studies, industry data) versus 48%
using previous product specs as a standard practice 43% — Overall, 8% of firms (including 26% of larger firms with
20% 50 or more employees) received an R&D tax credit in
We have an in-house database/library of research 41%
45% 2019.
6%
We contribute to and/or use evidence-based design 17%
33% — R&D tax credits decreased almost 30% to $68,000 on
8% average in 2019 from $96,000 in 2017 as the share of
We use a consultant to advise on relevant research 15%
12% firms that applied for and received an R&D tax credit both
3%
We have applied for an R&D tax credit in last two years 25% increased.
29%
We subscribe/secure access to a 7% — Firms specializing in institutional work received the
reseach library (including virtual) 13%
7% largest R&D tax credits in 2019.
3%
We received an R&D tax credit in last two years 20%
26%
5%
We conduct peer-reviewed research 10%
9%
We have an annual budget for research study 2%
or investigations 4%
17%
We have a formal research department/director 2%
that integrates research into all projects 3%
9%
We have a formal partnership with a university, either 1%
2%
supporting or collaborating on research 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Share of firms using BIM for billable projects continued to expand, with all large firms now all using it BIM
FIGURE 5. 4 :
% of firms • The overall share of firms using BIM software in some
Small firms (under 10 employees) capacity continued to increase in 2019, rising to 58% of
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) firms, with 51% using it for billable work and 7% using it for
Large firms (50 or more employees) non-billable work.
— Only 20% of firms do not use BIM software and do not

100% plan to acquire it, a decrease of six percentage points
100% 96% from 2017.
93%
88% 88%
— Even broken out by firm size, the share of firms using BIM
90%
84% software continued to expand, with 100% of large firms
and 37% of small firms using BIM for billable work in
80% 75%
2019.
74%
72%
— Midsize firms had the largest percentage point increase
70% 65% in the share of firms using BIM software for billable work
60% from 2017 to 2019 (13 percentage points).
60% — BIM software was used more frequently by institutional
firms (66%) and least frequently by residential firms
50% (39%) for billable work in 2019. (F IGUR E 5.4 )
43%
40%
37%
35% 34%
28% 28%
30%
21%
20% 16%
10%
7%
10%
0%
2005 2008 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Design visualization continues to be a top use of BIM while sharing models with clients • On average, firms that used BIM software for billable work
FIGURE 5. 5 :
becomes more popular used it heavily, with 76% of their revenue coming from
% of firms using BIM for billable work projects using BIM in 2019, a five-percentage-point increase
from 2017.
— 35% of the firms that used BIM software for billable work
Design visualization 84% in 2019 got 100% of their revenue from projects that
used it.
Presentation and renderings 82% • More firms reported starting to use BIM software to
share models with consultants (74%), an increase of five
Coordinated construction documents 75% percentage points from 2017 while the most frequently cited
use, design visualization (84%), decreased four percentage
Sharing models with consultants 74% points from 2017. (F IGUR E 5.5)
Sharing models with clients/owners 59%
Resolving conflicts with other disciplines 54%
Sharing models with

constructors/trade contractors 49%
Managing model data

during construction 26%
Energy/performance analysis 26%
Quantity takeoffs/estimating 25%
Fabrication and protyping 9%
4D scheduling and sequencing 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


A greater share of larger firms are using energy modeling on projects
FIGURE 5.6 :
% of firms Technology and software
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) • Half (51%) of firms reported using energy modeling
100%
Large firms (50 or more employees) software in 2019, although the majority used it through
consultants (42%), compared with using it in-house (9%).
80%
— Large firms were most likely to report using energy
64%
61% modeling on projects either in-house or through
60%
consultants (84%), compared with small firms (44%).
(F IGUR E 5.6)
40% 36%
— On average, the share of revenue coming from projects
20% using energy modeling increased slightly from 28% in
20%
11%
8% 2017 to 31% in 2019.
0% — Firms with 100 or more employees saw the greatest
Yes, we energy model our projects in-house Yes, the consultants we work with use energy modeling percent of their revenue come from projects using energy
modeling software, at an average of 63% in 2019.
FIGURE 5. 7 : Larger firms are adapting a variety of technology into their projects; • Use of technology in projects: 61% of firms reported using
cloud computing was used in some capacity by over half of firms cloud computing in some capacity in 2019. (F IGUR E 5.7 )
% of firms using in some capacity Small firms (under 10 employees)
Midsize firms (10 to 49 employees) • Use of technology in projects: 3D printing and virtual reality
100% Large firms (50 or more employees) were used by over half of large firms in some capacity in
2019, in comparison to less than 20% of small firms.
85% 85%
80%
72%

60% 57% 58% Appendix tables 4.1–4.12.
47%
40%
32%
24%
20% 18% 19%
8% 9%
0%
Cloud computing 4D/5D modeling 3D printing Virtual reality

International This chapter overviews the key

findings related to the international
work
work of architecture firms in the
United States.

One in 10 architecture firms worked on international projects in 2019 Architecture firm engagement with international projects
FIGURE 6 . 1 :
% of firms, status of work on international projects, 2019 • International work was conducted by 10% of firms in 2019, a
10%
Yes, worked on international
similar share of firms as in recent years. (F IGUR E 6.1)
projects* in 2019 • 52% of large firms reported that they worked on
6%
international projects, in contrast to just 13% of midsize
No, but have worked on international
projects* in the last 3 years firms, and 6% of small firms. (F IGUR E 6.2)
9%
• 83% of firms that did international work in 2019 derived
No, but pursuing potential
international projects*
gross billings from these projects, a modest uptick (77%)
75% from 2017.
No, and not currently interested in
pursuing international projects*
* International projects are defined as projects built outside the US and/or inside the US for international clients
FIGURE 6 . 2 : More than half of large firms had active international projects in 2019
% of firms, status of work on international projects, 2019
100%
80% 41%
68%
60% 75%
80% 7%
40%
52%
20% 19% Not pursuing international projects***
15%
14% Pursuing international projects**
10% 13%
6% Active international projects*
0%
All firms 1-9 employees 10-49 employees 50 or more employees
* Firm worked on international projects (projects built outside the US and/or inside the US for international clients) in 2019
** Firm has worked on international projects in the last three years or is pursuing potential international projects
*** Firm is not currently interested in pursuing international projects

2019 architecture firm billings from international work reached nearly $4 billion • International work accounted for an average of 5.8% of
FIGURE 6 . 3 :
% of total gross firm billings nationally derived from international projects, for given year; billings in billions of US dollars gross billings at firms with international work in 2019,
totaling $3.7 billion.
— Projects inside the US for international clients accounted

for the largest share of gross billings derived from
international projects (2.9% of gross billings).
— Firms with fewer than 100 employees were more likely to

report a larger share of their international billings from
projects outside the US for international clients (2.5%)
than were larger firms (1.6%). (F IGUR E 6.3)
7% $3.7 $4

6% 5.8%
ANNUAL BILLINGS, IN BILLIONS OF US DOLLARS

5.5% 5.5%
0.6% Outside US for federal government
$3
5% 0.6% Outside US for US clients other than
the federal government
SHARE OF BILLINGS
$2.2
4% 1.7% Outside US for international clients
$2
3% 2.6%
$1.7
2%
$1.2 $1
2.9% Inside US for international clients
1%
0% $0
2013 2015 2017 2019

Projects located in East Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East accounted for Regions of the world with international work
FIGURE 6 . 4 :
nearly half of 2019 international billings • East Asia and Pacific was the top region for international
% of 2019 gross billings from international projects outside the US, by region gross billings derived from projects outside the US in 2019
(19% of gross billings from international projects outside the
US), followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (18%). (F IGUR E 6.4 )
• The trend of a larger portion of international gross billings

being derived out of a US office (86%) as opposed to a
foreign office (14%) continued in 2019.
Eastern
Europe and • While 84% of firms have no permanent offices outside of
Canada Eurasia
7.0%
the US; China (4% of firms have permanent offices in the
United 7.1%
Kingdom country); the Middle East/North Africa (4%); and the United
Western
1.3% Europe Kingdom (4%) are the top locations for firms that do have
9.2% permanent foreign offices.
China
6.0%
• 60% of firms with international projects in the last three
Middle East
and North South and years reported that they teamed up with in-country partners
Mexico Africa Central Asia
7.2% 3.3% at least some of the time.
Central 10.2%
America
andCaribbean
9.6%
East Asia
Sub-Saharan and Pacific
Africa 19.5%
South 18.2%
America
1.3%

Differences between international and domestic projects

• Schematic design (provided by 85% of firms on
international projects), predesign/specialty consulting
(76%), and design development (73%) were the most
frequently cited services provided by firms on international
projects in 2019.
• A modestly larger portion of respondents reported more

problems after award for international projects than in past
years (21% in 2019 vs. 17% in 2017).
• 34% of commercial/industrial firms reported more issues

on international projects regarding construction account
aging than firms of other specializations in 2019.
• Firms also reported that there was a drop in profitability and

an increase in marketing costs for international projects in
2019.


Methodology

Invited and responding firms Background

FIGURE A . 1 :
Number of firms The AIA has surveyed architecture firms since 1979 as part
of a commitment to better track firm demographics and
business practices of the profession. Last conducted in
2018, the 2020 Firm Survey examines many of the issues
previously explored.

Survey content was developed by AIA staff and volunteer
14,889
Listed offices leaders. Sampling, data collection, and tabulation were
handled with the assistance of The Farnsworth Group, an
independent research company.

Sample composition
AIA sent The Farnsworth Group a list of 14,889 contacts
to be de-duplicated based on firm name, email address,
9,613 respondent name, street address, AIA member number,
Offices contacted phone number, and street address in order to prevent
with deliverable
duplicate responses from the same firm. After the list was
addresses
de-duplicated, the survey was distributed to representatives
of 9,613 unique firms. (F IGUR E A.1)

Data collection
On March 23, 2020, AIA sent an initial email (in the name
of AIA’s president) to the survey sample. The email invited
them to participate in the survey by visiting their unique
URL on a website hosted by The Farnsworth Group. As an
incentive to participate, respondents were told in the email
invitation that as participants, they would receive a copy of
the full survey report. Several reminder emails were sent to
954
Raw returns nonrespondents throughout April and May.
888
Usable responses

Universe of AIA member firms and survey response by firm size The survey was closed for tabulation on May 19, 2020, with
FIGURE A . 2 :
% and number of firms a total of 954 submitted returns. Returns were cleaned and
deleted if they did not meet certain validity criteria. The click
rate was roughly 26%, as 2,485 respondents were directed
to the survey using the provided link. The participation rate
Number of employees Estimated universe Unweighted responses was 38%, as 954 firms completed the survey with only 934
qualifying. Of the 934 firms that qualified, 888 records were
1 employee 5,171 27% 180 20% used after filtering out invalid responses.

2–4 employees 6,447 33% 215 24%
Sample representativeness and weighting
5–9 employees 2,890 15% 203 23%
To represent all US firms more accurately, most survey
data is weighted to restore correct proportionality by size.
10–19 employees 2,032 11% 240 16%
Compared with AIA’s estimate of how offices distribute
20–49 employees by size (number of employees) in the universe of all AIA
1,535 8% 108 12%
member-owned firms, the unweighted survey responses
50–99 employees 765 4% 26 3% somewhat underrepresent the smallest firms (under five
employees), while somewhat overrepresenting midsize firms
100+ employees 456 2% 16 2% (5–19 employees). (F IGUR E A.2)
TOTAL 19,296 100% 888 100%


Appendix

Firm Survey Report 2020 Firm and staff profile 42
Firm size (number of employees at office) (2019) Firm specialization (2019)
All firms All firms All firms Commercial/

1 2-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100+ Residential Institutional Mixed
Table 1.1 2015 2017 2019 Industrial
Architecture: single-discipline
Which one option best 51% 50% 55% 66% 65% 58% 38% 24% 8% 13% 65% 52% 49% 36%
firm
describes your firm
Architecture: multidisciplinary
(including all offices)? (with one or more additional
42% 42% 39% 26% 27% 37% 61% 69% 85% 81% 29% 42% 48% 40%
design disciplines such as interior
Percent of firms design or engineering)
Consulting 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 8%
Design/build 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 2% 4% 0% 4% 1% 1% 0%
Interior design: with one or more

additional disciplines, including 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%
architecture
Engineering: with one or more

architecture
Planning: with one or more

architecture
Other 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Some data may not add to total due to decimal rounding.



Architecture 98% 98% 99% 99% 98% 99% 99% 99% 96% 100% 99% 98% 100% 96%
Which design- Interior design 60% 60% 58% 38% 51% 68% 76% 84% 89% 100% 48% 65% 67% 43%
related disciplines or
Zoning/code compliance 58% 57% 54% 55% 55% 55% 59% 48% 35% 50% 51% 53% 53% 60%
specialties does your
Predesign services1 56% 57% 53% 47% 46% 56% 62% 74% 69% 75% 45% 52% 65% 47%
firm offer?
Planning 53% 51% 45% 32% 41% 49% 56% 61% 69% 81% 34% 46% 55% 40%
Percent of firms-multiple Sustainable design 41% 38% 35% 28% 26% 35% 46% 56% 65% 75% 31% 29% 46% 31%
response permitted
Test fits/space planning 33% 34% 35% 20% 30% 40% 49% 61% 58% 63% 18% 54% 46% 17%
Historic preservation 33% 31% 31% 22% 34% 37% 36% 39% 23% 31% 27% 29% 35% 24%
1
e.g., programming, master
planning, strategic planning, Pro bono/public interest design 33% 33% 27% 23% 25% 32% 29% 39% 19% 38% 24% 23% 31% 25%
site selection
Cost estimating 21% 19% 18% 13% 14% 23% 24% 27% 12% 31% 13% 17% 24% 11%
2
excluding architects, Design/build 22% 19% 17% 14% 12% 22% 22% 19% 31% 31% 10% 21% 21% 15%
engineers, interior designers
Construction management 20% 19% 16% 19% 17% 16% 10% 15% 8% 38% 15% 20% 14% 25%
3
e.g., evidence-based design Expert witness 13% 15% 15% 16% 17% 14% 12% 13% 8% 13% 13% 13% 16% 18%
Graphic design 19% 16% 15% 9% 9% 17% 16% 28% 35% 56% 9% 15% 19% 15%
Urban planning/design 20% 19% 13% 7% 9% 13% 25% 24% 12% 56% 11% 9% 15% 18%
Capital needs assesments 13% 12% 12% 8% 8% 14% 18% 21% 23% 38% 5% 12% 23% 15%
Forensic architecture/damage
11% 10% 11% 11% 11% 12% 9% 12% 0% 19% 6% 9% 14% 21%
assessment
Landscape architecture 11% 11% 10% 9% 7% 6% 10% 17% 12% 56% 8% 9% 9% 11%
Sustainability certification and
12% 10% 9% 5% 4% 10% 14% 22% 27% 38% 4% 8% 18% 1%
verification
Program management 11% 10% 9% 7% 6% 11% 11% 15% 15% 19% 3% 13% 15% 10%
Structural engineering 8% 8% 8% 9% 6% 5% 5% 12% 12% 25% 10% 6% 6% 4%
Specialty consulting 2
8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 9% 7% 12% 6% 3% 6% 7% 11%
Energy modeling 8% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 12% 31% 5% 3% 7% 4%
M/E/P engineering 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 7% 12% 31% 4% 4% 6% 1%
Practice-based research 3
7% 6% 5% 2% 2% 7% 6% 9% 19% 31% 2% 4% 11% 6%
Building commissioning 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 8% 13% 0% 1% 4% 0%
Other 6% 8% 7% 11% 6% 4% 8% 7% 0% 6% 4% 5% 9% 21%


2015–2020 n/a 4%* 7% 11% 11% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 12% 8% 2% 12%

In what year was your
2010–2014 17% 16% 14% 23% 14% 13% 7% 6% 0% 8% 18% 11% 12% 8%
firm founded?
2005–2009 14% 13% 13% 16% 16% 11% 8% 9% 0% 0% 16% 14% 7% 17%
Percent of firms
2000–2004 12% 13% 12% 16% 15% 7% 14% 10% 0% 0% 16% 12% 9% 12%
*
2015-2018
1995–1999 12% 11% 12% 10% 12% 15% 18% 15% 9% 0% 12% 10% 14% 8%
1990–1994 10% 10% 12% 8% 15% 15% 8% 15% 14% 0% 10% 14% 15% 9%
1985–1989 10% 10% 10% 9% 7% 14% 11% 10% 14% 8% 10% 11% 8% 19%
1980–1984 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 7% 8% 9% 5% 0% 3% 7% 7% 4%
1970–1979 8% 8% 6% 3% 2% 7% 10% 13% 23% 31% 2% 7% 9% 4%
1960–1969 4% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 10% 4% 14% 8% 1% 3% 4% 6%
1950–1959 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 3% 4% 4% 9% 0% 0% 2% 6% 0%
1900–1949 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 3% 4% 9% 38% 0% 0% 5% 0%
Before 1900 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 5% 8% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average year founded 1994 1994 1996 2003 2000 1994 1989 1989 1976 1958 2001 1996 1989 1998



S Corporation 27% 29% 35% 17% 38% 46% 45% 51% 27% 47% 30% 39% 39% 32%
Which option most
Limited Liability Company (LLC) 20% 20% 21% 23% 24% 21% 17% 16% 19% 0% 26% 23% 15% 15%
closely matches your
firm’s legal structure? Sole proprietorship 22% 22% 18% 44% 13% 7% 4% 2% 0% 0% 24% 15% 11% 28%
Professional Corporation (PC) 10% 9% 10% 4% 10% 11% 15% 13% 27% 0% 9% 8% 14% 3%
Percent of firms
Professional Limited Liability
7% 6% 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 0% 5% 5% 7% 15%
Company (PLLC)
Partnership 3% 3% 3% 1% 5% 4% 2% 6% 4% 0% 3% 6% 3% 0%
Employee-owned general
0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 5% 4% 12% 20% 1% 2% 5% 3%
business corporation (Inc.)
Limited Liability Partnership

2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 13% 1% 0% 3% 1%
(LLP)
Other 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 20% 0% 2% 4% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Yes n/a n/a 23% 4% 6% 26% 48% 74% 88% 88% 8% 26% 40% 19%
Does your firm
currently have an No n/a n/a 76% 95% 94% 73% 49% 25% 8% 13% 90% 73% 59% 81%
ownership transition
plan? Don't know n/a n/a 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 4% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Percent of firms
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Yes n/a n/a 36% 22% 32% 41% 50% 45% 62% 75% 30% 37% 45% 35%
Does your office
currently have a No n/a n/a 63% 78% 67% 58% 47% 53% 38% 19% 70% 63% 54% 65%
written business plan?
Don't know n/a n/a 1% 0% 1% 1% 3% 2% 0% 6% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Percent of firms
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Within the last year n/a n/a 28% 15% 13% 22% 30% 41% 75% 83% 13% 35% 32% 64%
When was that
business plan last 1–2 years ago n/a n/a 27% 23% 25% 39% 23% 39% 19% 8% 27% 35% 26% 0%
updated?
3–4 years ago n/a n/a 18% 20% 23% 18% 24% 8% 0% 8% 31% 4% 16% 20%
Percent of firms that have
a written business plan 5 or more years ago n/a n/a 25% 43% 35% 19% 21% 10% 6% 0% 29% 26% 21% 16%
Don’t know n/a n/a 2% 0% 4% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Yes n/a n/a 23% 9% 14% 30% 39% 45% 54% 81% 15% 26% 32% 20%
Does your office
currently have a No n/a n/a 75% 91% 85% 69% 58% 49% 42% 13% 84% 74% 64% 80%
business continuity
plan? Don't know n/a n/a 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 6% 4% 6% 1% 0% 4% 0%
Percent of firms
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Telework-ready employees n/a n/a 95% 81% 97% 93% 98% 98% 100% 92% 94% 91% 98% 86%
Which of the following
are included in your Cloud or off-network storage
n/a n/a 86% 88% 93% 75% 89% 86% 79% 92% 83% 82% 90% 79%
of files
office's business
continuity plan? Emergency preparedness plan n/a n/a 49% 50% 20% 38% 57% 63% 71% 77% 37% 53% 56% 43%
Percent of firms that have Hazard insurance n/a n/a 42% 19% 20% 50% 43% 45% 64% 69% 31% 35% 52% 28%
a business continuity plan—
multiple responses permitted
Cyber attack recovery plan n/a n/a 40% 25% 13% 37% 57% 45% 43% 85% 22% 46% 46% 50%
Disaster recovery plan n/a n/a 38% 31% 17% 32% 39% 35% 64% 92% 30% 36% 45% 64%
Other n/a n/a 4% 6% 7% 8% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 6% 3% 15%
Don't know n/a n/a 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 1% 0%



Small business (as defined
In which of these ways by the U.S. Small Business
Administration, makes less than 60% 58% 45% 37% 52% 54% 59% 43% 4% 0% 40% 51% 46% 58%
is your firm recognized $7.5 million gross revenues
on a FEDERAL level? annually)
Woman-owned business
Percent of firms—multiple 7% 8% 5% 3% 7% 6% 6% 7% 0% 0% 3% 5% 8% 7%
enterprise (WBE)
responses permitted
Minority-owned business
4% 5% 3% 0% 5% 3% 5% 3% 0% 0% 1% 1% 7% 3%
enterprise (MBE)
Small disadvantaged
businesses/disadvantaged 3% 4% 3% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 7% 0%
business enterprises (SDB/DBE)
Disabled veteran businesses
0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
(DVBE)
8(a) designation 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
HUBZone business enterprises

1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
(HUB)
None of these 38% 39% 35% 43% 26% 23% 19% 39% 92% 100% 34% 37% 34% 26%


Small business (as defined
In which of these ways by the U.S. Small Business
Administration, makes less than 63% 60% 57% 53% 63% 70% 71% 49% 4% 0% 57% 57% 57% 67%
is your firm recognized $7.5 million gross revenues
on a STATE/LOCAL annually)
level? Woman-owned business
9% 10% 11% 9% 13% 12% 9% 12% 0% 0% 11% 6% 14% 17%
enterprise (WBE)
Percent of firms—multiple Minority-owned business
responses permitted 5% 7% 7% 5% 7% 12% 9% 7% 4% 0% 7% 4% 10% 8%
enterprise (MBE)
Small disadvantaged
businesses/disadvantaged 4% 4% 6% 6% 4% 13% 7% 6% 0% 0% 3% 3% 11% 4%
business enterprises (SDB/DBE)
HUBZone business enterprises
1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 3%
(HUB)
Disabled veteran businesses
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%
(DVBE)
8(a) designation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
None of these 34% 35% 37% 46% 30% 21% 19% 40% 88% 100% 36% 40% 34% 28%

Yes 12% 13% 16% 4% 9% 12% 19% 34% 69% 88% 9% 18% 20% 14%
Does your firm
have more than one No 88% 87% 84% 96% 91% 88% 81% 66% 31% 13% 91% 82% 80% 86%
permanent office
(either inside or outside
the US)? Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of firms



5 or more 19% 12% 10% 0% 0% 8% 7% 8% 17% 29% 2% 6% 15% 10%

Including yours, how
4 6% 8% 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 6% 7% 0% 4% 3% 0%
many permanent
domestic offices does 3 12% 18% 12% 0% 0% 4% 11% 16% 22% 29% 0% 24% 15% 0%
your firm have?
2 54% 53% 49% 25% 50% 63% 67% 62% 50% 14% 68% 49% 43% 50%
Percent of firms with 1 9% 9% 22% 75% 40% 21% 15% 3% 6% 21% 22% 17% 21% 40%
multiple offices
0 n/a n/a 2% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average number of permanent

8 4 3 1 1 2 3 3 4 6 2 3 3 3
domestic offices

5 or more 7% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Including yours, how
4 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% 0% 4% 0% 0%
many permanent
foreign offices does 3 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 3% 0%
your firm have?
2 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% 0% 4% 3% 0%
Percent of firms with 1 17% 15% 8% 13% 10% 4% 4% 3% 0% 29% 9% 2% 6% 40%
multiple offices
0 70% 77% 87% 88% 90% 96% 96% 95% 89% 50% 89% 90% 89% 60%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average number of permanent

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
foreign offices



Architecture staff 57% 61% 61% 100% 82% 76% 72% 69% 68% 56% 76% 62% 67% 70%
Including you, how Licensed architects (not
20% 22% 22% 4% 12% 18% 23% 23% 23% 22% 24% 20% 25% 22%
many of the paid staff including principals/partners)
in your office–not Principals/partners 11% 10% 9% 96% 37% 21% 17% 13% 10% 7% 13% 9% 12% 10%
including contractors– Emerging professionals on the
path to licensure (formerly known 13% 19% 16% 0% 17% 20% 19% 20% 14% 15% 25% 19% 17% 12%
were in each of these
as interns)
categories as of Non-licensed architecture
January 1, 2020? staff not on licensure path
(nonregistered graduate
12% 8% 14% 1% 16% 17% 13% 13% 21% 12% 14% 14% 13% 26%
Percent of paid staff and architecture staff other than
average number of paid staff principals/partners or emerging
by position (weighted by professionals/students)
number of employees) Students 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 5% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Other design professionals
(including both licensed and 25% 22% 18% 0% 4% 6% 10% 13% 18% 21% 9% 20% 17% 13%
unlicensed staff)
Engineers 11% 7% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 9% 0% 1% 4% 0%
Certified/registered interior
n/a n/a 3% 0% 1% 1% 3% 4% 7% 2% 3% 4% 4% 7%
designers
Interior designers that are not
n/a n/a 3% 0% 2% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 6% 2% 4%
certified/registered
* (e.g., controller, bookkeeper,
accounting clerk, business
Planners 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 3% 1%
development manager, marketing
Landscape architects 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 7% 2% 0%
manager/assistant, human
resources director/manager, Zoning/code specialists 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
office manager, administrative
assistant, receptionist, librarian, Other design staff 6% 4% 2% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
in-house legal counsel)
Other staff 18% 18% 19% 0% 11% 13% 16% 15% 13% 23% 12% 14% 16% 17%
**Professional staff other than Nontechnical staff (non-
architects, designers, or other 9% 10% 13% 0% 8% 10% 12% 11% 10% 15% 9% 9% 12% 13%
billable)*
design professionals who are
Other nondesign professionals
typically billed directly on projects 6% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 4% 2% 1%
(e.g., healthcare professionals,
(billable)**
educational professionals) Technical staff (non-billable)
(e.g., CAD manager, IT manager/ 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 3%
director)
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average number of paid staff 45 50 64 1 3 7 14 30 70 165 8 52 63 112



0% n/a 78% 77% 93% 93% 88% 83% 82% 64% 65% 84% 79% 79% 58%
Approximately how
many of the total 1%–9% n/a 17% 20% 0% 0% 0% 12% 16% 36% 35% 10% 16% 19% 41%
architecture staff in
your office are licensed 10%–24% n/a 3% 2% 0% 0% 9% 5% 1% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% 0%
to practice in a foreign
country (e.g., other 25%–49% n/a 1% 1% 0% 5% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%
than the US), as of
50% or more n/a 1% 0% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
January 1, 2020?
Percent of all architecture

staff (weighted by number Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
of employees)



Approximately how Architecture staff 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0%

many of the total
payroll staff in your (including both licensed and 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% 0%
office in each of these unlicensed staff)
categories are PART- Other nondesign professionals
6% 4% 8% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 4% 0% 3% 2% 0%
TIME, as of January 1, (billable)
2020?
Technical staff (non-billable) 7% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Percent of all payroll
staff that are part-time
by position (weighted by
number of employees) Nontechnical staff (non-billable) 11% 8% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0%

Architecture staff 49% 37% 53% 54% 37% 37% 30% 33% 49% 92% 35% 35% 52% 54%
Approximately how
many of the staff Other design professionals
members in your unlicensed staff)
office in each of Other nondesign professionals
8% 8% 6% 8% 5% 8% 5% 40% 2% 4% 5% 15% 25% 0%
these categories are (billable)
CONTRACTORS, as of
Technical staff (non-billable) 12% 3% 2% 4% 10% 8% 15% 7% 0% 0% 11% 3% 2% 0%
January 1, 2020?
Nontechnical staff (non-billable) 9% 11% 9% 5% 22% 26% 28% 8% 8% 4% 38% 16% 6% 8%
Percent of contract staff at
firm by position (weighted
by number of employees) Total contract staff 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Principals/partners 19% 29% 21% 22% 23% 20% 16% 17% 20% 24% 18% 15% 19% 20%
Approximately how
Licensed architects (not
many of the total including principals partners)
29% 31% 34% 29% 40% 36% 32% 36% 42% 30% 38% 37% 36% 43%
payroll staff (full-time
Non-licensed architecture staff
and part-time–not 37% 37% 41% 0% 33% 44% 37% 36% 39% 43% 47% 33% 42% 44%
not on licensure path
including contractors–
in your office) that Emerging professionals on the
fall into each of as interns)
these categories are
Students 46% 50% 53% 0% 71% 55% 57% 60% 66% 41% 73% 58% 56% 100%
FEMALE?
Percent of staff by position (including both licensed and 44% 49% 43% 0% 69% 70% 64% 58% 62% 38% 82% 70% 48% 87%
that are female (weighted by unlicensed staff)
number of employees)
Other staff (including nondesign
professionals, technical staff, and 57% 56% 68% 0% 72% 77% 79% 75% 67% 68% 81% 72% 67% 56%
nontechnical staff)
Average percent of architecture

32% 35% 37% 0% 33% 37% 35% 37% 40% 36% 39% 37% 38% 40%
staff who are female


Principals/partners 8% 11% 14% 17% 20% 15% 12% 9% 19% 12% 13% 14% 11% 7%
Approximately how
Licensed architects (not
many of the total including principals partners)
20% 22% 26% 0% 11% 14% 20% 15% 20% 30% 17% 25% 15% 15%
Non-licensed architecture staff
and part-time–not 26% 27% 30% 100% 25% 37% 33% 18% 20% 43% 35% 30% 25% 31%
not on licensure path
in your office) in each Emerging professionals on the
category are self- as interns)
identified as a member
Students 26% 43% 43% 0% 41% 41% 32% 38% 31% 52% 24% 36% 45% 0%
of a racially and or
ethnically diverse Other design professionals
demographic group? unlicensed staff)
Percent of staff by position Other staff (including nondesign

that are self-identified professionals, technical staff, and 28% 35% 30% 0% 22% 17% 15% 20% 27% 31% 25% 17% 24% 51%
as a member of a racially nontechnical staff)
and or ethnically diverse
demographic group (weighted Average percent of architecture
by number of employees) staff who are self-identified as
a member of a racially and or 22% 27% 32% 0% 23% 27% 25% 22% 24% 37% 30% 30% 21% 24%
ethnically diverse demographic
group
For the purposes of this survey, racial and or ethnic diversity is defined as African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native
American or Alaskan Native, Subcontinental Asian, Asian or Pacific Islander, two or more races, or other


Under 25 7% 5% 5% 0% 6% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 6% 5% 7% 6%
Approximately how
many of the total 25–34 29% 34% 36% 1% 19% 27% 32% 32% 34% 39% 37% 40% 34% 43%
and part-time–not 35–44 27% 27% 28% 7% 19% 23% 22% 28% 29% 28% 28% 29% 26% 23%
in your office) are in 45–54 19% 18% 16% 26% 23% 19% 18% 18% 18% 15% 17% 14% 18% 15%
each of the following
55–64 14% 12% 11% 29% 21% 14% 14% 12% 10% 10% 8% 9% 12% 8%
age categories?
65 or older 4% 3% 3% 37% 12% 8% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 5%
Percent of employees
(weighted by number of
employees) Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Approximately how None n/a n/a 35% 78% 70% 58% 46% 29% 45% 11% 54% 41% 31% 62%
many of the payroll

staff (full-time 1%–9% n/a n/a 12% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 10% 15% 9% 18% 13% 1%
and part-time–not
including contractors– 10%–24% n/a n/a 23% 0% 0% 23% 27% 34% 22% 25% 7% 21% 30% 6%
in your office) maintain
specialty sustainability 25%–49% n/a n/a 26% 0% 19% 16% 17% 17% 13% 49% 16% 19% 21% 29%
or resilience credentials
(e.g., LEED AP, WELL
50% or more n/a n/a 4% 22% 11% 4% 1% 1% 10% 0% 14% 1% 4% 2%
AP)?
Percent of employees
(weighted by number of Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
employees)



Not currently hiring n/a n/a 55% 64% 65% 46% 42% 41% 19% 13% 63% 50% 44% 79%
What are your firm's
current hiring plans to
We will use external
acquire sustainability consultants.
n/a n/a 18% 21% 14% 20% 19% 25% 23% 13% 18% 19% 20% 11%
and resilience skills on
We will train existing in-house
staff? staff.
n/a n/a 14% 4% 7% 19% 23% 32% 42% 50% 9% 10% 26% 0%
Percent of firms—multiple We will hire in-house staff in the

n/a n/a 5% 1% 1% 10% 9% 10% 27% 19% 1% 7% 9% 3%
response permitted next 12 months.
We will hire in-house staff in the

n/a n/a 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 13% 2% 0% 2% 0%
next 36 months.
We may hire in the future, but

n/a n/a 11% 3% 9% 14% 15% 21% 12% 38% 9% 13% 13% 3%
not specific plans.
Unsure/don't know n/a n/a 8% 8% 7% 8% 11% 9% 8% 6% 7% 11% 7% 7%



Equitable pay policy and review

n/a n/a 34% 8% 22% 51% 61% 71% 73% 69% 26% 32% 47% 24%
Which of the following procedures
internal equitable and Leadership development/
inclusive practices does preparation opportunities
your office have designed to increase diversity n/a 12%* 25% 6% 13% 32% 47% 61% 62% 75% 15% 26% 36% 15%
and inclusion in leadership
in place? positions
Percent of firms—multiple Statement on diversity n/a n/a 19% 3% 8% 30% 36% 50% 38% 69% 9% 17% 32% 16%
response permitted
Aligning equity, diversity, and
inclusion with business goals n/a 11%** 18% 9% 12% 26% 25% 33% 38% 63% 16% 17% 22% 13%
and objectives
Retention strategies designed

to help retain a diverse and n/a 9% 17% 3% 8% 28% 34% 39% 38% 63% 13% 16% 26% 4%
inclusive workforce
Training on topics such as anti-

bias, antidiscrimination, implicit n/a 5%*** 16% 4% 7% 15% 26% 48% 38% 75% 9% 17% 20% 11%
bias, intercultural competency
Employment of people who have

n/a n/a 8% 3% 5% 9% 11% 13% 23% 50% 5% 8% 10% 11%
diverse abilities
* In 2017, asked about An internal employee resource/
leadership development n/a 2% 7% 2% 2% 4% 7% 19% 27% 63% 4% 7% 10% 1%
affinity group
opportunities designed to
increase diversity in higher- Office programs with a focus on
level positions within the
global/international diversity n/a 3% 7% 2% 4% 6% 9% 11% 27% 38% 4% 8% 8% 11%
office
and inclusion
**
In 2017, only asked about
Established metrics, data
aligning diversity with
business goals and objectives
collection on inclusive-related n/a n/a 6% 2% 1% 6% 9% 17% 19% 63% 4% 4% 10% 4%
practices, program, or initiatives
***
In 2017, asked if office-
provided training on equity, A staff member dedicated to
diversity, and inclusion such managing equity, diversity, and n/a 4% 6% 2% 3% 5% 6% 12% 19% 44% 3% 6% 9% 4%
as unconscious bias, cultural inclusion priorities
competency, etc.
Other n/a n/a 2% 3% 1% 1% 0% 2% 4% 0% 2% 1% 1% 3%
**** Combined with external
practices in 2017 None of these n/a 61%**** 51% 79% 64% 33% 18% 10% 12% 6% 60% 53% 35% 58%


Community outreach related to
Which of the following diversity and inclusion (e.g., links
between the office and educational n/a 15% 14% 7% 8% 19% 16% 30% 35% 63% 12% 10% 21% 8%
external equitable and institutions, government, identity-
inclusive practices based organizations)
does your office have Participation in cultural events
in place? (e.g., Black History Month,
n/a 5%* 14% 8% 10% 12% 11% 23% 46% 56% 10% 10% 16% 13%
Hispanic Heritage Month,
Pride Week)
Percent of firms—multiple
Employee perceptions/satisfaction
response permitted n/a 8% 12% 2% 5% 9% 19% 32% 65% 69% 7% 11% 19% 8%
/engagement survey
K–12 education career awareness
in your community targeting
n/a 17%** 12% 6% 7% 16% 19% 22% 38% 31% 8% 6% 21% 6%
underrepresented youth in the
profession
Employee recruitment strategies
designed to increase racial and n/a 11% 12% 2% 6% 16% 16% 31% 42% 63% 7% 10% 19% 8%
ethnic diversity and inclusion
Intercultural competence,
awareness-building, and n/a n/a 9% 6% 7% 9% 9% 17% 12% 56% 8% 8% 10% 7%
community engagement
Higher education career awareness
activities in your community
n/a n/a 9% 4% 7% 12% 9% 21% 15% 25% 7% 7% 12% 4%
* In 2017, asked about diversity targeting underrepresented youth
awareness celebrated in the in the profession
form of different cultural
Strategies to ensure supply-chain
events n/a n/a 6% 4% 3% 10% 5% 7% 4% 38% 4% 1% 9% 13%
equity
** In 2017, only asked about Incentives, performance measures
K-12 education activities in for management linked to the
your community achievement of organizational n/a 1%*** 5% 1% 2% 7% 9% 9% 8% 19% 4% 5% 5% 4%
equity, diversity, and inclusion
***
In 2017, asked about incentive
goals
pay for management linked
to the achievement of People managers held accountable
organizational diversity goals for equitable and inclusion-
n/a 2% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3% 7% 15% 19% 1% 3% 6% 1%
related tasks or outcomes in the
**** Combined with internal performance management process
practices in 2017
Other n/a n/a 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0% 3% 3%
None of these n/a 61%**** 62% 79% 74% 52% 46% 36% 8% 6% 70% 67% 49% 68%


Structural engineers 88% 89% 92% 89% 91% 96% 99% 95% 85% 100% 94% 93% 94% 83%
In the last three years, M/E/P engineers 84% 83% 86% 73% 85% 96% 96% 97% 81% 94% 76% 93% 95% 80%
what types of outside
Civil engineers 77% 74% 78% 63% 80% 87% 89% 91% 81% 88% 73% 82% 86% 62%
consultants have your
Landscape architects 60% 60% 63% 43% 58% 75% 84% 85% 85% 81% 58% 63% 73% 46%
office regularly used?
Lighting designers 33% 38% 44% 23% 41% 50% 56% 72% 69% 81% 41% 50% 43% 26%
Percent of firms—multiple Fire protection n/a 37% 44% 28% 34% 48% 63% 82% 58% 81% 29% 50% 58% 40%
response permitted
Interior designers 36% 37% 42% 34% 46% 47% 44% 38% 50% 50% 48% 47% 31% 31%
Acoustical engineers 31% 34% 38% 18% 23% 49% 65% 83% 85% 81% 27% 36% 56% 32%
Renderers/model makers/ani-
n/a 36% 36% 30% 34% 36% 39% 49% 50% 69% 34% 38% 38% 28%
mators/3D visualization support
Other professional disciplines 8% 7% 36% 21% 33% 42% 46% 62% 62% 56% 31% 34% 47% 26%
Cost estimators 30% 33% 34% 16% 21% 43% 59% 69% 69% 75% 15% 28% 60% 34%
Permit expediters 25% 28% 30% 20% 26% 29% 37% 44% 65% 69% 29% 39% 25% 31%
Building envelope consultants 18% 22% 28% 15% 19% 28% 48% 59% 65% 56% 24% 26% 37% 24%
Sustainability consultants 17% 20% 23% 10% 14% 21% 34% 59% 54% 81% 21% 17% 31% 18%
Zoning/code compliance
18% 21% 22% 14% 17% 26% 27% 32% 58% 50% 23% 23% 21% 33%
consultants
Building performance model
9% 13% 22% 14% 13% 22% 31% 45% 46% 75% 20% 18% 26% 17%
consultants
Security consultants 13% 17% 20% 8% 13% 20% 26% 54% 42% 69% 12% 19% 30% 20%
Specification writers 18% 19% 20% 9% 15% 21% 34% 39% 39% 44% 13% 24% 24% 19%
Other design staff 8% 9% 16% 21% 14% 13% 9% 15% 27% 44% 17% 16% 15% 18%
Other specialty consultants
17% 15% 9% 3% 4% 11% 12% 22% 27% 31% 3% 6% 16% 14%
(e.g., education, healthcare)
Master planners 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 2% 6% 12% 23% 25% 1% 5% 7% 5%
Industrial hygienists 4% 3% 4% 2% 1% 3% 7% 7% 15% 25% 1% 6% 8% 3%
Ecologists n/a 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 6% 0% 19% 5% 2% 3% 5%
Program specialists n/a 4% 3% 1% 0% 2% 4% 9% 15% 31% 0% 2% 8% 1%
Urban planners 2% 4% 3% 1% 1% 4% 4% 7% 8% 25% 1% 3% 3% 7%
Materials scientists 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 4% 4% 6% 0% 19% 1% 3% 4% 0%
Public health professionals 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%


Yes, in the last 12 months n/a n/a 26% 19% 26% 25% 24% 32% 54% 50% 28% 20% 30% 24%
Has your office
surveyed clients Yes, but more than 12 months ago n/a n/a 16% 9% 12% 20% 24% 31% 27% 19% 13% 17% 21% 10%
regarding their
satisfaction with the No n/a n/a 57% 71% 60% 54% 49% 37% 19% 25% 58% 62% 47% 67%
office's work?
Don't know n/a n/a 1% 0% 2% 1% 4% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Percent of firms
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Direct conversation with the
n/a n/a 66% 67% 68% 69% 60% 60% 57% 73% 66% 66% 66% 50%
Which of the following client (in person or by phone)
methods have you Firm-created internal survey n/a n/a 35% 21% 33% 40% 36% 50% 43% 27% 33% 37% 33% 38%
used to survey clients Past Performance Questionnaire
n/a n/a 13% 6% 11% 9% 22% 19% 29% 9% 8% 10% 20% 12%
regarding their (PPQ)
Outside market research firm for
satisfaction with your this specific effort
n/a n/a 9% 0% 1% 3% 10% 16% 33% 55% 2% 11% 15% 4%
office's work? Marketing/PR agency on
retainer or that we use n/a n/a 8% 2% 5% 7% 12% 12% 24% 18% 5% 13% 10% 0%
Percent of firms that surveyed frequently
clients—multiple response Self/firm-administered template
permitted n/a n/a 7% 10% 4% 5% 6% 9% 14% 9% 4% 11% 8% 4%
from outside resource
Federal government survey
n/a n/a 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 5% 18% 1% 3% 8% 0%
reports by project managers
Other n/a n/a 6% 10% 5% 4% 6% 4% 5% 9% 8% 2% 4% 17%
Don't know n/a n/a 3% 0% 4% 2% 4% 1% 5% 9% 1% 2% 4% 0%



Yes n/a n/a 52% 31% 45% 62% 71% 81% 100% 81% 38% 55% 70% 52%
Does your firm have a
No, but we are planning to in the
Quality Assurance (QA) next two years
n/a n/a 14% 12% 15% 17% 17% 13% 0% 6% 15% 13% 14% 11%
or Quality Control (QC)
No, and we have no plans to do so n/a n/a 30% 55% 35% 18% 9% 4% 0% 0% 41% 32% 15% 34%
process in place?
Don't know n/a n/a 3% 2% 5% 3% 4% 2% 0% 13% 5% 0% 2% 3%
Percent of firms
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Yes n/a n/a 77% 80% 69% 73% 84% 89% 85% 85% 74% 78% 81% 73%
Does your QA or
No n/a n/a 21% 20% 29% 26% 15% 9% 12% 15% 25% 22% 16% 27%
QC process include
checklists? Don't know n/a n/a 2% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%
Percent of firms that have a Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
QA/QC in place

Prior to major milestones n/a n/a 56% 38% 46% 60% 58% 64% 81% 85% 45% 56% 64% 51%
At what interval do
Intermittent as needed n/a n/a 33% 44% 40% 28% 34% 25% 15% 15% 41% 33% 29% 19%
you typically review
for QA/QC? Depends on the contract
n/a n/a 9% 15% 12% 9% 6% 8% 4% 0% 9% 8% 6% 30%
requirement
Percent of firms that have a Other n/a n/a 2% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 4% 2% 1% 0%
QA/QC in place
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Firm Survey Report 2020 Firm billings and finances 64

Out of your office's 2018 net billings n/a 74% 72% 74% 80% 68% 75% 73% 69% 71% 79% 74% 67% 62%
2018 gross billings,
approximately what 2018 pass-throughs/
were the net billings, n/a 23% 27% 25% 19% 30% 23% 23% 31% 29% 16% 26% 32% 37%
reimbursables
pass-throughs/
reimbursables, and
2018 other revenue n/a 3% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% 6% 1% 1% 1%
other revenue?
Percent of gross billings Total gross billings

$40.6 $40.3 $55.4 $1.0 $2.8 $4.4 $5.9 $13.3 $12.7 $15.4 $6.0 $10.7 $24.7 $3.5
($000,000,000)

Out of your office's 2019 net billings 70% 72% 71% 73% 79% 77% 80% 70% 69% 68% 78% 73% 68% 64%
2019 gross billings,
approximately what 2019 pass-throughs/
were the net billings, 25% 25% 26% 26% 19% 21% 19% 22% 30% 32% 16% 26% 28% 35%
reimbursables
pass-throughs/
reimbursables, and
2019 other revenue 5% 3% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 8% 1% 0% 5% 1% 4% 2%
other revenue?
Percent of gross billings Average net billings per

$108,000 $115,000 $159,000 $131,000 $124,000 $160,000 $297,000 $210,000 $163,000 $170,000 $141,000 $153,000 $227,000 $125,000
employee
Total gross billings

$40.6 $45.0 $63.8 $0.9 $3.1 $4.2 $9.8 $14.5 $12.3 $18.9 $6.5 $10.5 $30.1 $3.8
($000,000,000)



Projects where your office was

83% 85% 84% 84% 92% 91% 93% 88% 83% 75% 94% 79% 87% 81%
Approximately the architect of record
what percentage of Projects where your office was a
your office's 2019 subcontractor/design architect 6% 6% 8% 9% 2% 5% 5% 6% 5% 17% 2% 12% 7% 10%
gross billings came to another office or firm
from each of these Projects where your office
categories? worked jointly with another 5% 5% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2% 5% 6% 8% 3% 5% 5% 7%
office or firm
Percent of gross billings Other 6% 4% 2% 3% 4% 1% 0% 2% 6% 0% 1% 4% 1% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 2.4 1 2-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100+ Residential Institutional Mixed
2015 2017 2019 Industrial
Stipulated sum (fixed fee) 36% 38% 38% 27% 20% 34% 48% 40% 38% 37% 32% 33% 43% 27%
Approximately what
percentage of your Professional fee plus
29% 28% 32% 23% 39% 22% 13% 29% 42% 33% 30% 46% 24% 43%
reimbursable expenses
office's 2019 gross
billings was billed in Hourly rate (with or without
20% 18% 18% 41% 28% 22% 20% 12% 8% 27% 23% 16% 16% 26%
agreed maximum)
each of these ways?
Percentage of construction cost 11% 13% 10% 5% 9% 17% 10% 15% 11% 3% 11% 3% 15% 2%
Percent of gross billings
Percentage of construction cost
1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 3% 7% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0%
not to exceed fixed amount
Fee per square foot 2% 2% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 1%
Other 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Due in 30 days or less n/a n/a $327.3 $12.7 $29.8 $172.8 $168.5 $1,711.7 $969.5 $4,048.6 $63.4 $217.2 $310.9 $2,006.5
Approximately what are
Due 31–60 days n/a n/a $170.4 $3.9 $10.3 $61.7 $64.5 $895.5 $571.9 $2,367.2 $20.8 $81.1 $216.3 $1,011.9
your office's current
receivables at each Due 61–90 days n/a n/a $90.2 $6.0 $7.5 $33.5 $41.2 $203.9 $490.9 $1,736.9 $17.2 $60.4 $107.0 $480.2
interval? Due over 90 days n/a n/a $113.8 $3.6 $15.0 $31.8 $53.5 $193.4 $592.7 $2,477.8 $15.6 $97.1 $116.1 $281.1
Dollar amount of all firms,

Total receivables n/a n/a $701.7 $26.2 $62.6 $299.8 $327.7 $3,004.5 $2,625.0 $10,630.5 $117.0 $455.8 $750.3 $3,779.7
thousands

Less than 1 month n/a n/a 13% 25% 13% 6% 2% 4% 4% 0% 15% 12% 8% 26%
As of the end of last
1 to less than 3 months n/a n/a 32% 37% 40% 32% 30% 12% 8% 0% 37% 37% 22% 31%
month, what is your
estimate of the backlog 3 to less than 6 months n/a n/a 30% 25% 26% 34% 33% 50% 35% 19% 28% 30% 33% 26%
of projects at your 6 to less than 12 months n/a n/a 19% 11% 15% 21% 30% 26% 31% 50% 15% 18% 27% 16%
office?
12 months or more n/a n/a 5% 1% 4% 7% 4% 8% 23% 25% 4% 3% 8% 0%
Percent of firms
Don't know n/a n/a 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average backlog in months n/a n/a 5 3 4 5 5 6 8 9 4 4 6 3



State or local government

16% 21% 23% 5% 11% 20% 43% 21% 26% 16% 2% 3% 38% 5%
Approximately what (including public schools)
percentage of your Other business, commercial,
20% 16% 17% 11% 19% 16% 8% 14% 21% 21% 8% 27% 11% 50%
office's 2019 gross or industrial companies
billings came from Developers 20% 23% 17% 11% 13% 12% 15% 19% 25% 12% 33% 33% 7% 16%
types of clients (that Private individuals 16% 14% 12% 54% 36% 29% 12% 12% 4% 4% 48% 16% 4% 7%
is, the person or entity Nonprofit organizations or
invoiced for your institutions (e.g., private 9% 8% 11% 5% 10% 9% 6% 19% 7% 13% 5% 3% 18% 1%
schools, museums, churches)
office's work)?
Construction companies
7% 8% 8% 5% 6% 7% 6% 5% 8% 12% 2% 10% 10% 0%
Percent of gross billings (including design-build)
Federal government 5% 4% 5% 1% 0% 3% 5% 6% 2% 11% 0% 1% 7% 6%
Other architects, engineers,

3% 4% 4% 6% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% 5% 1% 4% 5% 1%
design professionals
Interior designers 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 3% 0% 12%
Other 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Repeat clients,
46% 43% 40% 52% 54% 46% 35% 51% 38% 30% 47% 49% 38% 20%
Approximately what noncompetitive selection
percentage of your Repeat clients, competitive
office's 2019 gross selection (interview, 26% 28% 30% 4% 10% 17% 40% 24% 35% 38% 7% 23% 36% 42%
billings came from proposals, etc.)
each of the following New clients, noncompetitive
11% 11% 9% 27% 17% 16% 9% 8% 5% 6% 22% 11% 6% 2%
sources of work? selection
New clients, competitive

Percent of gross billings selection (interview, 17% 19% 21% 18% 19% 21% 15% 18% 22% 26% 24% 17% 20% 36%
proposals, etc.)
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Did your office provide

Yes 54% 54% 52% 39% 51% 59% 61% 69% 54% 63% 46% 53% 56% 53%
pro bono work (defined
as professional
services for which the
architect/firm receives No 46% 46% 48% 61% 49% 41% 39% 31% 46% 38% 54% 47% 44% 47%
no compensation, other
than for reimbursable
expenses) in 2019?
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of firms



30% or more n/a 3% 2% 7% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 10% 3% 0% 2% 5%

Approximately what
20%–29% n/a 3% 3% 6% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0%
percentage of your office's
2019 billable hours went to 10%–19% n/a 14% 18% 36% 17% 14% 12% 4% 8% 0% 21% 16% 11% 32%
pro bono work for a nonprofit 7%–9% n/a 3% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
entity or public entity serving
social needs? 5%–6% n/a 26% 24% 20% 33% 28% 20% 18% 8% 0% 23% 25% 26% 19%
3%–4% n/a 9% 7% 6% 2% 11% 8% 16% 8% 0% 6% 7% 8% 0%

Percent of firms that provided pro bono
work in 2019 1%–2% n/a 33% 33% 10% 24% 36% 44% 58% 69% 90% 23% 40% 40% 16%
None n/a 7% 13% 16% 20% 6% 11% 4% 8% 0% 18% 13% 9% 27%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a 7% 6% 11% 5% 6% 5% 3% 2% 11% 7% 4% 6% 10%

30% or more n/a 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 5%

Approximately what
20%–29% n/a 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 0% 20% 2% 1% 5% 11%
2019 billable hours went 10%–19% n/a 9% 7% 10% 7% 8% 6% 1% 8% 0% 9% 9% 2% 6%
to pro bono work for 7%–9% n/a 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
noncompensated services for
for-profit clients? 5%–6% n/a 17% 17% 14% 21% 20% 15% 14% 8% 10% 17% 12% 17% 25%
3%–4% n/a 5% 6% 3% 5% 3% 10% 16% 0% 0% 3% 7% 6% 14%

work in 2019 1%–2% n/a 26% 22% 4% 20% 22% 41% 31% 69% 10% 15% 26% 28% 11%
None n/a 38% 43% 64% 42% 42% 25% 35% 15% 60% 50% 44% 40% 29%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% 10%



Yes n/a n/a 46% 33% 43% 47% 45% 61% 64% 100% 35% 45% 60% 61%
Does your office's professional
liability insurance cover your No n/a n/a 7% 17% 6% 3% 7% 3% 0% 0% 9% 6% 3% 10%
pro bono work?
Don't know n/a n/a 47% 50% 51% 51% 48% 36% 36% 0% 56% 48% 38% 29%
work in 2019 Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



30% or more 6% 7% 5% 7% 7% 3% 2% 2% 0% 0% 4% 6% 6% 0%
Approximately what
20%–29% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 8% 7% 4% 4% 6% 6% 3% 7% 8%
2019 net billings went to 10%–19% 22% 23% 22% 12% 23% 30% 31% 29% 15% 19% 19% 22% 24% 16%
staff costs for marketing 7%–9% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 5% 4% 8% 15% 19% 2% 4% 7% 0%
and business development
(including estimated value of 5%–6% 20% 18% 22% 16% 25% 21% 24% 21% 35% 25% 21% 22% 22% 33%
principal’s and staff time)? 3%–4% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 11% 11% 11% 8% 19% 5% 8% 10% 3%
1%–2% 12% 13% 12% 7% 13% 14% 11% 22% 19% 0% 13% 14% 11% 8%
Percent of firms indicating percent
of net billings None 22% 21% 22% 51% 18% 7% 9% 3% 4% 13% 30% 22% 12% 32%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean 10% 10% 9% 7% 11% 9% 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% 9% 11% 6%

30% or more 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Approximately what
20%–29% 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 3%
2019 net billings went to direct 10%–19% 11% 14% 11% 13% 11% 11% 12% 9% 8% 0% 14% 12% 9% 3%
expenses for marketing and 7%–9% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3%
business development?
5%–6% 22% 21% 25% 25% 25% 28% 26% 20% 23% 13% 24% 25% 23% 37%
Percent of firms indicating percent of
3%–4% 8% 8% 9% 4% 6% 15% 9% 12% 15% 31% 8% 11% 9% 7%
net billings
1%–2% 30% 31% 32% 16% 34% 35% 39% 50% 50% 38% 29% 30% 38% 28%
None 21% 20% 19% 36% 18% 7% 11% 6% 4% 19% 20% 20% 17% 19%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean 6% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 5% 4% 4% 4%



30% or more n/a n/a 11% 18% 11% 9% 5% 8% 15% 0% 14% 14% 8% 9%
As a percentage of
25%–29.9% 14%* 15%* 6% 6% 3% 7% 10% 7% 15% 7% 6% 5% 7% 2%
2019 net billings,
what was your 20%–24.9% 7% 8% 12% 14% 12% 9% 8% 16% 4% 36% 14% 14% 12% 4%
office's approximate 15%–19.9% 10% 11% 13% 6% 14% 12% 15% 13% 15% 36% 10% 14% 14% 19%
2019 profit after
all compensation 10%–14.9% 17% 19% 17% 15% 14% 17% 20% 22% 19% 14% 12% 17% 19% 15%
was paid (including 5%–9.9% 16% 17% 14% 14% 12% 18% 14% 18% 19% 7% 14% 15% 13% 15%
owners'/principals'
2.5%–4.9% 11% 7% 8% 4% 9% 9% 12% 8% 8% 0% 8% 10% 9% 2%
compensation), but
before paying out any 0%–2.4% 14% 12% 11% 14% 12% 12% 8% 6% 4% 0% 13% 6% 11% 17%
taxes, discretionary Less than 0% (loss) 10% 10% 9% 10% 12% 6% 8% 3% 0% 0% 9% 7% 7% 17%
bonuses, or profit-
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
sharing?
Average profit, as a
Percent of firms 13.4% 14.9% 13.6% 14.7% 12.4% 12.9% 12.6% 14.6% 17.3% 18.5% 13.9% 14.8% 13.3% 10.3%
percentage of net billings
* 2015 and 2017, previous breaks were

25% or more, 20% to 24.9%, 15%
to 19.9%, 10% to 14.9%, 5% to
9.9%, 2.5% to 4.9%, 0% to 2.4%,
and less than 0%



$5,000,000 or more n/a 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 31% 69% 0% 3% 7% 1%

What is your office's
$1,000,000–$4,999,999 n/a 14% 13% 1% 1% 13% 29% 59% 58% 19% 7% 15% 21% 11%
net worth as of
January 1, 2020? $500,000–$999,999 n/a 10% 9% 3% 5% 17% 23% 17% 4% 0% 7% 9% 14% 3%
$250,000–$499,999 n/a 17% 12% 4% 14% 24% 20% 5% 0% 6% 8% 14% 14% 10%
Percent of firms
$100,000–$249,999 n/a 55%* 17% 15% 21% 22% 17% 4% 0% 0% 15% 18% 17% 14%
$50,000–$99,999 n/a n/a 14% 21% 19% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% 18% 15% 7% 14%
Less than $50,000 n/a n/a 30% 54% 39% 12% 6% 3% 4% 0% 42% 25% 19% 43%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
* 2017, previous breaks were $5,000,000

or more; $1,000,000–$4,999,999;
$500,000–$999,999; $250,000–
$499,999; and less than $250,000



$1,000,000 or more n/a 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 15% 38% 0% 1% 3% 0%

What is the
$500,000–$999,999 n/a 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 6% 4% 6% 0% 0% 2% 4%
approximate value of
your office's business $250,000–$499,999 n/a 3% 3% 0% 0% 1% 4% 9% 27% 6% 1% 4% 4% 1%
loans and/or debt as of $100,000–$249,999 n/a 29%* 5% 2% 2% 8% 15% 15% 4% 6% 3% 9% 8% 1%
January 1, 2020?
$50,000–$99,999 n/a n/a 7% 2% 6% 14% 11% 9% 0% 6% 5% 9% 8% 3%
Percent of firms
$1–$49,999 n/a n/a 18% 21% 21% 24% 12% 7% 8% 0% 22% 17% 16% 15%
None/$0 n/a 64% 63% 76% 71% 51% 52% 46% 42% 31% 69% 59% 58% 75%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean ($000) n/a $123 $70 $10 $13 $44 $85 $215 $369 $692 $27 $67 $108 $44
* 2017, previous breaks were $5,000,000

or more, $1,000,000–$4,999,999,
$500,000–$999,999, $250,000–
$499,999, $1–$250,000, and none



$100,000 or more n/a 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 12% 23% 25% 1% 4% 2% 3%

What is the
$10,000–$99,999 n/a 17% 14% 3% 7% 18% 24% 36% 38% 50% 8% 19% 15% 18%
approximate value
of the bad debts that $5,000–$9,999 n/a 26%* 10% 7% 9% 13% 17% 6% 8% 13% 11% 10% 8% 3%
your office wrote off $2,500–$4,999 n/a n/a 8% 6% 7% 14% 9% 5% 8% 0% 6% 7% 9% 6%
in 2019?
$1–$2,499 n/a n/a 12% 10% 14% 12% 11% 8% 12% 6% 12% 12% 11% 7%
Percent of firms
None/$0 n/a 54% 53% 74% 61% 40% 39% 31% 12% 0% 61% 47% 54% 64%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean ($000) n/a $17 $14 $3 $6 $13 $16 $40 $58 $72 $7 $18 $14 $15
* (2017, previous breaks were

$500,000 or more; $250,000–
$499,999; $100,000–$249,999;
$10,000–$99,999; $1–$9,999;
and none)



AIA contract documents n/a n/a 72% 49% 68% 83% 89% 95% 100% 100% 55% 74% 91% 68%
Which of the following
Custom internal agreements n/a n/a 60% 64% 61% 60% 56% 47% 50% 63% 69% 64% 39% 67%
types of contractual
agreements does your Client-furnished agreements n/a n/a 32% 15% 19% 36% 51% 69% 73% 94% 11% 26% 60% 37%
office typically use? Letters of understanding
n/a n/a 27% 26% 26% 20% 28% 26% 38% 56% 23% 26% 32% 33%
(LOUs)
responses permitted No formal agreement n/a n/a 5% 7% 6% 4% 5% 2% 0% 0% 7% 5% 3% 0%
Other n/a n/a 3% 1% 3% 1% 3% 6% 0% 19% 1% 2% 4% 3%
Do not engage in this type of

n/a n/a 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
project

Firm Survey Report 2020 Construction sectors served 78

Education (K–12) 8% 12% 14% 3% 3% 12% 28% 13% 19% 4% 1% 1% 24% 0%

Approximately what
Education (college/university) 9% 8% 12% 4% 4% 5% 17% 13% 10% 16% 1% 2% 20% 2%
percentage of your
office's 2019 gross Office 13% 14% 12% 10% 12% 11% 5% 10% 15% 14% 5% 26% 6% 17%
billings came from Healthcare 11% 7% 11% 2% 7% 5% 7% 19% 11% 10% 1% 3% 18% 3%
types of projects? Multifamily residential 11% 13% 10% 12% 17% 11% 9% 10% 11% 6% 39% 9% 3% 9%
Single-family residential 7% 7% 8% 44% 27% 22% 7% 5% 1% 2% 45% 5% 1% 1%

Other government/civic
(e.g., post office, federal office 5% 5% 6% 2% 5% 5% 6% 8% 2% 9% 0% 2% 9% 3%
buildings)
Hospitality 7% 5% 5% 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 8% 3% 2% 18% 1% 7%
Retail, food services,

7% 5% 4% 8% 7% 9% 6% 3% 4% 1% 2% 15% 1% 3%
warehouses, etc.
Transportation (e.g., airports, rail,
3% 3% 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4% 6% 0% 3% 4% 0%
bus, mass transit)
Recreational (e.g., sports centers,
2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2% 4% 2% 0% 1% 4% 1%
theme parks)
Manufacturing 5% 4% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 0% 7% 1% 1%
Cultural (e.g., museums) 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 2% 0%
Distribution/warehousing 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 6% 1% 0%
Religious 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0%
Justice (e.g., corrections,

1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
courthouses)
Communications 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other construction projects 5% 3% 4% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 15% 0% 1% 0% 46%
Nonconstruction projects and

1% 5% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 1% 4% 1% 1% 2% 6%
activities
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



New construction projects 54% 54% 49% 40% 39% 45% 38% 45% 60% 50% 58% 57% 45% 46%
Approximately what
Renovations, rehabilitations,
percentage of your retrofits
28% 29% 31% 34% 38% 34% 46% 33% 25% 25% 26% 30% 34% 30%
office's 2019 gross
Additions to existing structures 13% 11% 13% 18% 16% 16% 8% 13% 11% 14% 12% 9% 13% 20%
billings came from
each of these project Historic preservation activities 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 1% 6% 3% 2% 3% 1%
categories? Other nonconstruction-related
3% 3% 4% 5% 3% 2% 6% 5% 3% 4% 2% 2% 5% 4%
services
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



If at least some of Construction of new multifamily

52% 56% 60% 15% 26% 25% 52% 59% 75% 86% 40% 71% 57% 86%
housing units
your office's 2019
gross billings came
from residential work Construction of new single-
24% 21% 21% 34% 24% 31% 29% 16% 22% 11% 27% 18% 26% 3%
(single-family and/ family housing units
or multifamily units),
approximately what Renovations/remodels/alter-
percentage of that 16% 17% 13% 29% 34% 31% 13% 17% 2% 1% 22% 8% 11% 9%
ations of existing housing units
residential work's
gross billings came
Additions to existing housing
from each of these 8% 7% 6% 23% 15% 13% 7% 7% 1% 1% 10% 4% 6% 2%
units
categories?
Percent of residential gross

billings Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Did your office begin Yes, began work on residential

70% 68% 67% 72% 72% 66% 59% 54% 46% 44% 93% 55% 37% 60%
projects
design work on any
residential and/or
nonresidential projects Yes, began work on
65% 60% 68% 52% 66% 77% 77% 87% 96% 69% 46% 85% 82% 61%
nonresidential projects
in 2019?
responses permitted No 11% 14% 7% 9% 8% 6% 5% 6% 0% 19% 4% 8% 12% 8%


New single-family housing 7% 10% 9% 21% 13% 7% 12% 6% 1% 0% 12% 3% 5% 36%

Considering
Less than 1,800 square feet 1% 4% 3% 6% 2% 2% 6% 3% 0% 0% 4% 1% 1% 2%
only residential
construction projects 1,800–3,999 square feet 4% 4% 4% 9% 6% 4% 5% 2% 0% 0% 5% 1% 3% 23%
for which design work 4,000 square feet or more 2% 2% 2% 7% 5% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 11%
was begun by your
office in 2019, how Mean single-family housing
6.5 8.6 7.8 4.5 5.7 5.9 17.7 26.7 2.5 1.1 10.5 3.3 4.1 8.4
units started
many were new single-
family or multifamily New multifamily housing 76% 73% 71% 27% 52% 69% 68% 84% 96% 100% 62% 88% 78% 24%
housing units (not Less than 1,200 square feet 48% 53% 51% 19% 38% 48% 49% 67% 50% 55% 48% 62% 59% 0%
properties; e.g., count
1,200–1,799 square feet 17% 13% 12% 4% 6% 14% 13% 12% 25% 30% 7% 16% 15% 17%
a fourplex as 4 units)
of each of these sizes 1,800 square feet or more 11% 7% 7% 4% 8% 8% 6% 5% 21% 14% 6% 10% 4% 7%
and how many were Mean multifamily housing
72.5 62.8 62.7 5.6 22.6 58.0 100.6 381.1 264.3 368.3 55.0 95.1 61.1 5.7
each type of addition/ units started
renovation? Additions/Renovations (single
17% 18% 20% 52% 35% 24% 20% 10% 3% 0% 26% 9% 17% 40%
and multifamily)
Percent of housing units Additions/major structural
started in 2019, of firms with 9% 10% 12% 36% 23% 9% 10% 6% 3% 0% 15% 5% 7% 34%
alterations
new residential construction
starts in 2019 where office Kitchen/bath remodels 3% 5% 4% 9% 6% 6% 5% 3% 0% 0% 6% 1% 5% 3%
was architect of record
Other renovations 5% 3% 4% 7% 6% 8% 5% 1% 0% 0% 5% 2% 5% 3%
Mean additions/renovations
15.9 15.2 17.8 11.0 15.6 19.8 29.3 45.3 7.0 0.6 23.6 9.9 13.3 9.4
housing units started



0% n/a n/a 34% 36% 32% 34% 34% 35% 44% 29% 31% 48% 32% 39%
Considering the residential
projects your office 1%–5% n/a n/a 3% 3% 1% 5% 3% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% 0%
began design work on
in 2019, approximately 6%–10% n/a n/a 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 8% 11% 0% 4% 2% 8% 14%
what percentage of that
construction contract value 11%–25% n/a n/a 4% 4% 2% 3% 4% 10% 0% 14% 3% 3% 5% 5%
came from buildings with
26%–50% n/a n/a 7% 5% 10% 8% 6% 8% 0% 0% 8% 4% 7% 0%
qualities of resilience?
51%–90% n/a n/a 10% 10% 10% 8% 10% 8% 11% 14% 11% 9% 7% 3%
Percent of firms that began residential
projects in 2019
More than 90% n/a n/a 19% 12% 26% 19% 21% 6% 11% 43% 18% 15% 27% 34%
Don't know n/a n/a 19% 26% 15% 17% 19% 21% 22% 0% 22% 16% 12% 6%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a n/a 36% 29% 43% 34% 38% 23% 25% 54% 38% 27% 40% 38%



0% n/a n/a 48% 56% 51% 46% 43% 37% 0% 29% 49% 50% 48% 41%
Considering the residential
came from buildings that
26%–50% n/a n/a 4% 3% 1% 6% 3% 7% 8% 29% 3% 4% 7% 0%
met/are expected to meet a
performance/sustainability/
51%–90% n/a n/a 9% 7% 10% 6% 8% 19% 8% 29% 9% 13% 10% 9%
health ratings standard (e.g.,
LEED, WELL, RELi) More than 90% n/a n/a 12% 11% 13% 14% 15% 5% 17% 14% 12% 6% 17% 24%
Percent of firms that began residential Don't know n/a n/a 14% 13% 14% 12% 15% 12% 33% 0% 14% 12% 11% 19%
projects in 2019
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a n/a 25% 21% 25% 24% 26% 28% 43% 46% 24% 20% 30% 37%



0% n/a n/a 35% 45% 42% 31% 29% 17% 32% 0% 42% 41% 29% 34%
Considering the nonresidential
came from buildings with
26%–50% n/a n/a 7% 5% 6% 11% 9% 6% 5% 0% 7% 6% 7% 6%
qualities of resilience?
51%–90% n/a n/a 11% 5% 11% 9% 9% 17% 21% 40% 7% 11% 16% 0%
Percent of firms that began
nonresidential projects in 2019
More than 90% n/a n/a 12% 11% 15% 11% 11% 12% 0% 10% 6% 11% 14% 37%
Don't know n/a n/a 19% 23% 14% 24% 22% 23% 11% 20% 25% 18% 15% 9%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a n/a 29% 22% 30% 29% 29% 37% 23% 55% 19% 27% 35% 42%



0% n/a n/a 44% 59% 60% 40% 34% 15% 0% 0% 65% 42% 31% 50%
Considering the nonresidential
came from buildings that
26%–50% n/a n/a 8% 6% 3% 10% 12% 14% 4% 27% 2% 10% 11% 7%
met/are expected to meet a
performance/sustainability/
51%–90% n/a n/a 12% 6% 8% 8% 11% 21% 38% 45% 4% 11% 20% 0%
health ratings standard (e.g.,
LEED, WELL, RELi) More than 90% n/a n/a 7% 11% 5% 7% 9% 5% 8% 0% 4% 3% 9% 17%
Percent of firms that began Don't know n/a n/a 12% 9% 14% 13% 10% 13% 8% 9% 14% 11% 8% 14%
nonresidential projects in 2019
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a n/a 23% 19% 15% 21% 27% 34% 46% 52% 10% 19% 33% 23%



Yes n/a n/a 14% 7% 9% 13% 20% 25% 42% 54% 9% 13% 25% 10%
Did your office conduct any
Post-Occupancy Evaluations
No n/a n/a 83% 93% 90% 83% 73% 65% 54% 38% 89% 85% 71% 88%
(POEs) in 2019?
Percent of firms Don't know n/a n/a 3% 1% 1% 4% 8% 10% 4% 8% 2% 2% 4% 2%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



1%–5% n/a n/a 19% 9% 12% 17% 19% 24% 27% 29% 8% 22% 22% 14%
On what percentage of your
firm's built projects did you 6%–10% n/a n/a 26% 45% 18% 8% 46% 16% 27% 29% 22% 25% 31% 29%
conduct a Post-Occupancy
Evaluation (POE) in 2019? 11%–25% n/a n/a 18% 18% 18% 13% 19% 32% 9% 14% 7% 32% 17% 28%
Percent of firms that conducted POEs 26%–50% n/a n/a 23% 18% 24% 42% 8% 20% 27% 29% 32% 22% 22% 0%
51%–75% n/a n/a 4% 9% 6% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 1% 0%
75%–99% n/a n/a 6% 0% 12% 0% 8% 8% 9% 0% 5% 0% 5% 28%
100% of our projects n/a n/a 3% 0% 12% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0%
Don't know n/a n/a 1% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean n/a n/a 25% 19% 39% 31% 17% 22% 23% 16% 40% 16% 20% 32%



Contact the owner/occupant to

n/a n/a 96% 91% 100% 92% 96% 96% 100% 100% 95% 94% 99% 100%
Which of the following see how things are going
elements did you Survey building occupants on
n/a n/a 72% 45% 65% 84% 81% 68% 91% 71% 61% 69% 78% 72%
include in your POEs in satisfaction
2019? Obtain utility bill to determine
n/a n/a 31% 27% 35% 28% 31% 40% 9% 57% 34% 25% 33% 14%
actual performance
Percent of firms that
Prepare building user's manual
conducted POEs—multiple n/a n/a 30% 9% 24% 36% 35% 36% 27% 57% 22% 38% 33% 28%
for building operator
responses permitted
Share collected data with
n/a n/a 26% 0% 18% 28% 31% 28% 36% 57% 10% 28% 32% 72%
building occupants
Teach occupants and operators
how to improve building n/a n/a 26% 18% 24% 20% 15% 32% 27% 57% 24% 22% 27% 0%
performance
Pre-occupancy evaluation n/a n/a 25% 9% 12% 20% 27% 44% 27% 57% 9% 25% 31% 43%
Post-occupancy energy analysis n/a n/a 24% 0% 6% 24% 27% 32% 36% 71% 12% 22% 27% 72%
Develop and share strategies

to improve the building's n/a n/a 20% 9% 6% 24% 12% 28% 27% 57% 17% 12% 24% 28%
performance
Record O&M training videos for
n/a n/a 16% 0% 0% 12% 31% 24% 36% 14% 2% 0% 28% 0%
future operators
Formal onsite daylight
n/a n/a 12% 9% 18% 4% 8% 20% 9% 14% 10% 13% 15% 0%
measurements
Data logging of indoor
n/a n/a 10% 9% 0% 8% 12% 24% 9% 14% 5% 9% 13% 0%
environmental measurements
Formal post-occupancy air
n/a n/a 7% 0% 6% 4% 8% 12% 9% 14% 0% 9% 10% 0%
quality testing
Other n/a n/a 1% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0%


Firm Survey Report 2020 Practice and technology trends 90

Basic design services

Approximately (e.g., schematic design, design
what percentage of development, construction documents, 64% 65% 71% 68% 72% 75% 75% 69% 71% 71% 76% 65% 71% 87%
bidding/negotiations,
your office's 2019 construction administration)
gross billings came
Planning and predesign services
from each of the (e.g., code analysis, master planning,
following service 10% 10% 9% 11% 10% 9% 7% 10% 7% 10% 8% 10% 9% 9%
programming, property valuation, site
categories? planning/selection, urban design)
Expanded design services

Percent of gross billings (e.g., cost estimating, interior program
management, value design, LEED cer- 7% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 8% 5% 4% 9% 5% 2%
tification, program management, value
engineering)
Nonarchitectural design services

(e.g., civil engineering,
8% 9% 6% 1% 4% 4% 3% 6% 9% 6% 3% 6% 7% 1%
landscape architecture/design,
structural engineering)
Construction services
(e.g., construction management, 5% 5% 4% 6% 3% 3% 3% 7% 2% 3% 7% 2% 4% 0%
design-build)
Integrated project delivery

services (IPD) (e.g., conceptualization,
criteria design, detailed design,
5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 4% 2% 7% 2% 0%
implementation documents, agency
coordination/buyout, construction,
closeout)
Operations and maintenance

services (e.g., commissioning, energy 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
monitoring, post-occupancy evaluation)
Other 1% 3% 1% 4% 3% 1% 6% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Traditional design-bid-build
61% 68% 59% 75% 77% 68% 68% 43% 51% 71% 75% 79% 44% 79%
Approximately what contract with owner
percentage of your Construction manager as
13% 11% 19% 2% 6% 8% 19% 30% 29% 5% 2% 3% 32% 0%
office's 2019 gross constructor (CM at risk)
billings was/will be Design-build contract:
12% 10% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% 8% 7% 17% 3% 10% 10% 17%
delivered in each of contractor-led
these ways? Construction manager as
5% 4% 4% 0% 1% 4% 1% 3% 8% 2% 1% 3% 5% 0%
agent (agency CM)
Integrated project delivery
3% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 1% 9% 5% 0% 9% 1% 4% 0%
(IPD)
Design-build contract:
3% 2% 2% 8% 3% 5% 3% 3% 0% 2% 7% 2% 1% 0%
architect-led
Public-private partnership (P3) n/a 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Design-build-operate-maintain 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Design-build-finance-
1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
operate-maintain
Design-build-finance 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 2% 3% 1% 7% 4% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Occupant survey(s) 52% 58% 48% 45% 58% 36% 44% 38% 72% 55% 49% 45% 52% 50%
How do you typically
monitor/evaluate Energy model calibration and/or
51% 31% 44% 35% 38% 47% 47% 58% 61% 45% 39% 44% 49% 40%
actual building monitoring
performance? Building controls 45% 30% 39% 24% 34% 43% 48% 47% 39% 73% 32% 33% 47% 43%
Percent of firms—mulitple Commissioning/retro

47% 30% 36% 14% 23% 38% 59% 55% 61% 55% 19% 25% 59% 32%
responses permited commissioning
Overall benchmarking and
37% 21% 25% 12% 20% 26% 17% 38% 44% 73% 18% 21% 27% 29%
tracking
Monitor energy meters n/a 12% 16% 16% 14% 17% 20% 15% 11% 27% 16% 15% 17% 21%
Water consumption/monitoring 24% 12% 14% 8% 13% 12% 17% 22% 11% 36% 15% 12% 15% 15%
Dashboard 18% 10% 8% 4% 3% 4% 9% 12% 22% 36% 5% 6% 10% 7%
Portable/temporary light or
n/a 7% 5% 6% 3% 2% 5% 5% 11% 9% 4% 3% 7% 0%
temperature meters
Other 7% 10% 7% 16% 6% 9% 3% 7% 0% 0% 12% 7% 3% 11%
Do not evaluate building

n/a n/a 59% 70% 64% 53% 51% 42% 31% 15% 65% 64% 45% 58%
performance


Yes, we use energy modeling on

n/a n/a 9% 9% 6% 9% 10% 12% 12% 38% 10% 11% 7% 9%
Is your office currently our projects in-house
using energy modeling Yes, the consultants we work
n/a n/a 42% 29% 33% 53% 55% 68% 73% 46% 35% 39% 58% 35%
on projects? with use energy modeling
Percent of firms No, but plan to n/a n/a 13% 21% 16% 9% 10% 2% 0% 0% 15% 13% 12% 9%
No, and we do not plan to n/a n/a 30% 36% 39% 24% 17% 14% 8% 8% 33% 34% 19% 42%
Unsure/don't know n/a n/a 6% 5% 6% 5% 8% 4% 8% 8% 7% 4% 5% 4%
Total n/a n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



100% n/a 7% 8% 11% 8% 11% 7% 3% 0% 9% 12% 5% 4% 14%

What share of your
office's revenue is from 75%–99% n/a 9% 12% 8% 15% 9% 9% 11% 19% 27% 14% 8% 13% 14%
projects using energy
modeling software? 50%–74% n/a 13% 12% 11% 5% 14% 14% 13% 10% 45% 8% 8% 18% 7%
Percent of firms using energy 25%–49% n/a 9% 12% 11% 10% 12% 9% 15% 19% 0% 10% 11% 11% 11%
modeling software for billable
work
1%–24% n/a 55% 31% 25% 32% 31% 38% 38% 24% 18% 26% 46% 29% 25%
None n/a 8% 26% 33% 29% 24% 22% 21% 29% 0% 29% 23% 25% 29%
Total n/a 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average percent of revenue n/a 28% 31% 30% 30% 33% 30% 28% 30% 63% 34% 24% 32% 35%



We use literature reviews or consume

How has your existing research on an ad hoc basis n/a 43% 44% 38% 42% 51% 46% 47% 54% 50% 44% 38% 50% 48%
office integrated depending on the project
practice-relevant We save our past projects as case

57% 46% 43% 32% 42% 51% 53% 61% 46% 44% 47% 37% 46% 29%
studies to revisit/analyze
research into your
We promote a culture of knowledge
practice? sharing
n/a n/a 40% 26% 30% 53% 54% 69% 65% 75% 35% 34% 53% 33%
We use research on products to

Percent of firms—
inform our project specifications
multiple response n/a 35% 38% 36% 33% 42% 45% 52% 46% 38% 37% 36% 44% 35%
versus using previous product specs
permitted
as a standard practice
We have an in-house database/
27% 27% 26% 13% 20% 35% 39% 44% 42% 50% 22% 27% 28% 28%
library of research
We contribute to and/or use
n/a n/a 10% 4% 7% 9% 13% 21% 31% 38% 7% 7% 17% 11%
evidence-based design
We use a consultant to advise on
14% 9% 10% 6% 8% 12% 11% 19% 8% 19% 9% 9% 10% 14%
relevant research
We have applied for a R&D tax credit
n/a 5%* 9% 1% 3% 9% 16% 36% 27% 31% 4% 8% 15% 6%
in the last two years
We subscribe/secure access to a
8% 7% 8% 7% 6% 9% 11% 15% 8% 6% 7% 8% 7% 17%
research library (including virtual)
* Did not ask specifically if applied We received a R&D tax credit in the
n/a 5%* 8% 1% 2% 8% 12% 31% 23% 31% 4% 7% 12% 8%
or received in the last two years last two years
We conduct peer-reviewed research n/a n/a 6% 6% 3% 8% 6% 16% 4% 19% 6% 4% 9% 3%
We have an annual budget for
n/a n/a 3% 1% 1% 4% 3% 7% 8% 31% 2% 2% 4% 11%
research study or investigations
We have a formal research
department/director that integrates 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 4% 19% 2% 0% 3% 11%
research into all our projects
We have a formal partnership with
a university, either supporting or 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 12% 6% 1% 1% 3% 3%
collaborating on research
Other 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 6% 2% 1% 1% 3%
We do not engage in practice-
n/a 34% 28% 38% 36% 19% 15% 12% 12% 6% 32% 33% 18% 29%
relevant research


$200,000 or more n/a 14% 10% 0% 0% 6% 12% 9% 0% 40% 5% 15% 7% 0%

How much was your
most recent R&D tax $100,000–$199,999 n/a 12% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 0% 20% 11% 5% 14% 0%
credit?
$50,000–$99,999 n/a 30% 26% 0% 0% 25% 12% 30% 50% 40% 11% 15% 30% 33%
Percent of firms that received a
R&D tax credit, amount of credit
$25,000–$49,999 n/a 29% 29% 0% 0% 31% 59% 30% 33% 0% 33% 20% 35% 33%
received
Less than $25,000 n/a 15% 25% 100% 100% 38% 18% 6% 17% 0% 39% 45% 14% 34%
Average tax credit ($000) n/a $96 $68 $15 $15 $48 $56 $89 $52 $140 $53 $62 $72 $41


Design charettes n/a n/a 46% 24% 31% 55% 73% 86% 96% 94% 33% 44% 63% 44%
Did your office
incorporate the Standard/documented project
n/a n/a 33% 23% 27% 35% 40% 48% 54% 75% 29% 28% 41% 27%
following practices into delivery process
any of your projects in Peer reviews n/a n/a 24% 9% 17% 33% 34% 43% 50% 69% 18% 21% 30% 39%
2019?
Participatory or community
n/a n/a 23% 7% 14% 26% 44% 51% 42% 88% 11% 16% 41% 26%
Percent of firms—multiple design process
responses permitted
Integrative design process n/a n/a 19% 14% 14% 20% 26% 30% 23% 69% 15% 18% 26% 24%
Modular design/construction n/a n/a 13% 9% 8% 11% 20% 27% 38% 38% 11% 16% 13% 21%
Evidence-based design n/a n/a 13% 7% 7% 13% 19% 24% 38% 63% 7% 11% 22% 15%
Offsite fabrication n/a n/a 12% 13% 5% 10% 16% 20% 15% 50% 11% 13% 10% 15%
Alternative project delivery n/a n/a 9% 3% 6% 10% 14% 17% 31% 44% 4% 9% 16% 14%
Design benchmarking n/a n/a 7% 2% 4% 5% 9% 21% 19% 50% 4% 6% 11% 15%
Don't know n/a n/a 31% 49% 40% 16% 9% 6% 0% 6% 38% 34% 17% 29%


Yes, we are using it for billable

40% 45% 51% 29% 35% 57% 85% 92% 100% 100% 39% 51% 66% 40%
Is your office currently work
using building Yes, but we are not yet using it
9% 7% 7% 8% 8% 11% 6% 2% 0% 0% 9% 8% 6% 3%
information modeling for billable work
(BIM) software? No, but plan to acquire within
4% 4% 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 1% 0%
the next 12 months
Percent of firms
No, but plan to acquire
10% 11% 9% 9% 15% 9% 4% 0% 0% 0% 10% 10% 7% 14%
sometime
No and do not plan to acquire
because contractors are using 2% 7% 10% 18% 12% 4% 1% 4% 0% 0% 12% 8% 8% 13%
BIM software
No, and do not plan to acquire
35% 26% 20% 33% 26% 14% 3% 3% 0% 0% 27% 19% 12% 31%
for other reasons
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



100% 32% 34% 35% 60% 41% 33% 23% 31% 15% 19% 57% 23% 27% 41%
What share of your
office's revenue is from 75%–99% 32% 30% 34% 21% 19% 31% 47% 47% 50% 50% 27% 36% 40% 21%
projects using BIM
software? 50%–74% 10% 12% 12% 4% 11% 17% 12% 10% 23% 13% 7% 19% 13% 14%
Percent of firms using BIM 25%–49% 9% 8% 9% 6% 18% 10% 7% 4% 4% 6% 5% 10% 10% 11%
software for billable work
1%–24% 17% 16% 10% 9% 12% 8% 11% 7% 8% 13% 4% 11% 11% 14%
None 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Average percent of revenue 70% 71% 76% 83% 69% 74% 75% 81% 74% 74% 86% 71% 74% 71%



Design visualization 92% 88% 84% 84% 78% 83% 89% 89% 88% 88% 84% 85% 88% 93%
For which of the
following services is Presentation and renderings 81% 85% 82% 75% 74% 83% 87% 89% 100% 88% 79% 81% 90% 71%
BIM being used at your
office? Coordinated construction
82% 74% 75% 66% 67% 75% 79% 88% 88% 81% 73% 70% 81% 64%
documents
Percent of firms using BIM Sharing models with consultants 66% 69% 74% 51% 60% 83% 86% 89% 96% 88% 63% 76% 84% 71%
software for billable work—
multiple responses permitted Sharing models with clients/
55% 61% 59% 50% 53% 62% 54% 66% 81% 75% 58% 56% 59% 71%
owners
Resolving conflicts with other
55% 49% 54% 32% 29% 59% 68% 75% 88% 88% 35% 49% 73% 54%
disciplines
Sharing models with
44% 47% 49% 26% 31% 51% 57% 75% 88% 75% 40% 42% 60% 58%
constructors/trade contractors
Managing model data during
n/a 23% 26% 18% 13% 28% 28% 43% 31% 69% 23% 23% 28% 32%
construction
Energy/performance analysis 28% 24% 26% 15% 13% 33% 27% 37% 31% 81% 21% 17% 34% 25%
Quantity takeoffs/estimating 31% 28% 25% 25% 11% 32% 20% 32% 27% 69% 22% 20% 31% 22%
Fabrication and prototyping n/a 11% 9% 9% 5% 9% 7% 13% 4% 31% 10% 9% 7% 13%
4D scheduling and sequencing n/a 6% 3% 1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 8% 25% 2% 4% 5% 0%
Other 2% 1% 3% 7% 3% 4% 1% 1% 0% 6% 4% 3% 2% 0%


Cloud computing use–information

How are you using mobility
the following For marketing purposes* n/a n/a 1% 2% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0%
technology in your
For design/project purposes** n/a n/a 27% 22% 30% 29% 29% 28% 31% 27% 21% 29% 33% 52%
office?
For both marketing and design
n/a n/a 33% 26% 26% 38% 40% 46% 46% 73% 31% 32% 34% 25%
Percent of firms project purposes
Not using n/a n/a 39% 50% 43% 31% 30% 25% 23% 0% 46% 38% 32% 23%
4D/5D modeling
For marketing purposes* n/a n/a 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0%

n/a n/a 5% 2% 2% 5% 7% 11% 13% 23% 3% 5% 6% 1%
project purposes
Not using n/a n/a 90% 93% 94% 87% 82% 83% 79% 69% 93% 89% 87% 90%
3D printing

* e.g., demonstration of capabilities, For design/project purposes** n/a n/a 7% 3% 4% 8% 11% 17% 8% 20% 5% 7% 8% 13%
client proposals, advertising/
promotion For both marketing and design
n/a n/a 9% 1% 5% 6% 9% 23% 31% 67% 6% 10% 10% 10%
project purposes
** e.g., design, specification, project
delivery Not using n/a n/a 84% 96% 90% 83% 78% 56% 58% 13% 89% 82% 80% 77%
Virtual reality

n/a n/a 18% 10% 6% 23% 24% 35% 58% 73% 11% 17% 24% 7%
project purposes
Not using n/a n/a 72% 85% 87% 64% 58% 47% 19% 7% 81% 71% 62% 76%


Firm Survey Report 2020 International work 102

Yes 10% 9% 10% 4% 6% 9% 13% 12% 35% 81% 6% 12% 10% 19%
In 2019, did your
firm (not just your No, but have worked on
office) work on any international projects in the last 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 8% 6% 11% 4% 6% 7% 6% 4% 10%
3 years
international projects;
that is, projects built No, but pursuing potential
12% 10% 8% 10% 8% 7% 11% 9% 4% 0% 8% 8% 9% 10%
international projects
outside the US and/
or inside the US for No, and not currently interested
in pursuing international 70% 76% 76% 81% 82% 76% 69% 68% 58% 13% 80% 74% 77% 61%
international clients? projects
Percent of firms Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Did your firm derive any

Yes 81% 77% 83% 75% 67% 67% 94% 85% 89% 100% 76% 81% 86% 85%
gross billings in 2019 from
international projects (projects
built outside the US and/or
inside the US for international No 19% 23% 17% 25% 33% 33% 6% 15% 11% 0% 24% 19% 14% 15%
clients)?
Percent of headquarters/single-office
firms that worked on international
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
projects in 2019



Inside US for international

1.5% 1.4% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Approximately clients
what percentage Outside US for international
2.4% 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2%
of your firm’s 2019 clients
gross billings from Outside US for US clients other
0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%
international projects than the federal government
was derived from Outside US for federal
1.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%
projects in each of the government
following categories? Total share of billings from
5.5% 2.6% 5.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 1.2% 5.5% 20.1% 0.5% 3.7% 5.0% 2.9%
Percent of total gross firm
Average gross billings
billings nationally derived from
from international projects $2.22 $1.17 $3.69 $0.01 $0.00 $0.01 $0.04 $0.17 $0.68 $3.81 $0.03 $0.39 $1.51 $0.11
($000,000,000)


East Asia and Pacific (including

Approximately what Korea, Japan, SE Asia, Australia, 12% 12% 19% 0% 7% 35% 0% 0% 16% 24% 2% 15% 0% 47%
share of your firm's Oceania; does not include China)
gross billings from Sub-Saharan Africa 9% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 34% 0% 0% 69% 0%
international projects Middle East and North Africa 18% 7% 10% 40% 22% 0% 0% 0% 10% 11% 6% 13% 2% 0%
outside the US (not
including projects Central America and Caribbean n/a 6% 10% 0% 56% 0% 17% 10% 19% 2% 59% 18% 0% 0%
inside the US for Western Europe (excluding UK) 6% 20% 9% 0% 0% 2% 10% 0% 16% 5% 5% 15% 1% 22%
international clients)
Mexico n/a 6% 7% 0% 0% 0% 42% 1% 14% 2% 0% 14% 5% 0%
were from each of the
following international Eastern Europe and Eurasia 4% 2% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 2% 0% 13% 3% 0%
regions in 2019? Canada 5% 11% 7% 0% 15% 3% 19% 71% 4% 5% 21% 6% 15% 1%
Percent of 2019 gross billings China 14% 27% 6% 0% 0% 49% 0% 0% 3% 8% 0% 3% 2% 20%

from projects outside the US, South and Central Asia
by region 5% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 1% 0%
(including India)
South America 6% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%
United Kingdom n/a n/a 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 9%
Other n/a n/a 1% 60% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 2% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



What share of your firm's 2019

Based out of US office 78% 81% 86% 100% 92% 100% 91% 100% 79% 75% 92% 84% 91% 84%
international gross billings are
derived from projects based
out of a foreign office versus
a US office (i.e., offices in Based out of foreign
locations outside the United 22% 19% 14% 0% 8% 0% 9% 0% 21% 25% 8% 16% 9% 16%
office
States, its territories, and
possessions)?
Percent of 2019 international gross Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
billings



China 3% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 21% 0% 4% 2% 9%

In what areas outside
Middle East and North Africa 3% 2% 4% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 10% 14% 3% 4% 4% 0%
the US does your
firm currently have United Kingdom n/a n/a 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 21% 0% 4% 4% 9%
permanent offices? East Asia and Pacific (including
Korea, Japan, SE Asia, Australia, 2% 2% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 7% 2% 4% 4% 0%
Percent of firms with at least Oceania; does not include China)
one foreign office—multiple
responses permitted Canada 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 6% 4% 4% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Western Europe (excluding UK) 1% 3% 1% 0% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 10%
Central America and Caribbean n/a 0% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%
South and Central Asia

0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%
(including India)
Mexico n/a 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Sub-Saharan Africa 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 4% 0%
South America 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Eastern Europe and Eurasia 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
No permanent offices outside

89% 89% 84% 88% 86% 88% 96% 88% 90% 50% 85% 91% 84% 72%
the US


Always 25% 24% 21% 25% 14% 29% 22% 16% 20% 21% 30% 21% 18% 19%
How often has your
firm teamed up with Most of the time 14% 14% 21% 6% 24% 12% 19% 16% 40% 36% 23% 26% 16% 19%
an in-country partner
on its international Some of the time 19% 19% 19% 19% 14% 21% 11% 28% 10% 29% 16% 19% 27% 0%
projects?
Never 41% 43% 40% 50% 48% 38% 48% 40% 30% 14% 31% 34% 39% 62%
Percent of firms with
international projects Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Schematic design 86% 79% 85% 69% 90% 82% 93% 84% 90% 86% 92% 85% 92% 57%
What services
Pre-design/specialty consulting 78% 74% 76% 81% 71% 59% 85% 68% 80% 93% 71% 85% 82% 57%
does your firm
generally provide on Design development 73% 71% 73% 63% 71% 76% 85% 68% 70% 79% 81% 79% 81% 48%
international projects? Construction documents 42% 40% 42% 38% 38% 32% 67% 52% 20% 50% 45% 40% 49% 28%
Percent of firms with Construction administration 26% 28% 30% 19% 14% 32% 48% 24% 20% 57% 29% 30% 37% 19%
international projects—
multiple responses permitted Bid/negotiations 16% 21% 20% 19% 10% 9% 37% 24% 10% 36% 26% 11% 27% 0%
Non-architectural services 16% 18% 19% 19% 5% 18% 22% 28% 0% 43% 21% 6% 25% 9%
Other 8% 9% 9% 19% 14% 3% 0% 0% 10% 14% 3% 2% 8% 29%



Cost of doing business
How do your firm’s More 42% 36% 37% 20% 30% 34% 62% 45% 22% 50% 38% 33% 41% 45%
international projects Same 46% 44% 42% 53% 30% 45% 31% 50% 67% 33% 39% 45% 42% 45%
(including US projects Less 12% 20% 21% 27% 40% 21% 8% 5% 11% 17% 23% 21% 17% 10%
for international Client familiarity
clients) typically More 21% 24% 23% 27% 30% 23% 25% 20% 25% 8% 29% 21% 16% 20%
compare with your Same 62% 65% 61% 60% 60% 53% 75% 70% 50% 58% 52% 57% 79% 65%
domestic projects in Less 17% 11% 16% 13% 10% 23% 0% 10% 25% 33% 19% 22% 5% 15%
each of these areas? Win rate
More 21% 26% 25% 7% 35% 24% 32% 25% 33% 17% 27% 21% 28% 20%
Percent of firms with Same 61% 55% 52% 53% 50% 52% 60% 55% 44% 50% 51% 52% 57% 45%
international projects, Less 18% 20% 23% 40% 15% 24% 8% 20% 22% 33% 23% 26% 15% 35%
differences between
Problems encountered after award
international and domestic
projects in each area More 25% 17% 21% 0% 21% 20% 21% 20% 33% 42% 10% 26% 27% 28%
Same 58% 64% 59% 80% 47% 60% 63% 70% 44% 50% 69% 47% 60% 72%
Less 17% 18% 20% 20% 32% 20% 17% 10% 22% 8% 21% 26% 13% 0%
Construction account aging
More 22% 18% 18% 20% 5% 7% 12% 16% 33% 50% 5% 34% 24% 16%
Same 64% 64% 60% 73% 63% 69% 80% 63% 33% 25% 70% 52% 67% 61%
Less 14% 18% 21% 7% 32% 24% 8% 21% 33% 25% 25% 14% 9% 22%
Marketing costs
More 22% 14% 19% 0% 20% 17% 19% 25% 22% 33% 19% 17% 22% 15%
Same 51% 53% 53% 73% 35% 45% 65% 55% 56% 50% 44% 60% 50% 85%
Less 27% 32% 28% 27% 45% 38% 15% 20% 22% 17% 37% 24% 28% 0%
Profitability
More 17% 22% 15% 15% 14% 13% 19% 15% 25% 8% 18% 21% 9% 10%
Same 53% 55% 51% 62% 33% 57% 65% 55% 63% 42% 41% 60% 57% 50%
Less 30% 23% 33% 23% 52% 30% 15% 30% 13% 50% 41% 18% 34% 40%
Competition for projects
More 15% 16% 12% 13% 5% 3% 4% 20% 11% 33% 10% 14% 9% 5%
Same 50% 51% 48% 60% 50% 33% 52% 45% 56% 42% 47% 50% 46% 65%
Less 35% 33% 40% 27% 45% 63% 44% 35% 33% 25% 43% 36% 46% 30%

Firm Survey Report 2020
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 2020 BY
The American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
aia.org
© 2020 THE AM ER ICAN INST I T UT E O F A R CH I T ECT S

A LL RI GHTS R ESERVED.
ISBN: 978-1-57165-016-0

2020 Firm Survey Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 Firm Survey Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OVERVIEW P.3 / FIRM AND STAFF PROFILE P.8 / FIRM BILLINGS AND FINANCES P.

Firm Survey Report 2020 01

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 2020 BY R E P O R T P R E PA R E D B Y :

ISBN: 978-1-57165-016-0 The Farnsworth Group

DESIGN AND PRODUCTION:

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Overview 1 Heading into the pandemic-induced

2 Years of healthy business conditions

3 Increased emphasis on the

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

$337 3.6% 4.0%

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

80% 80% In 2005, during a period of very strong construction activity,

51.9% 51.9% 51.3% Diversity continues on the upswing

3 Source: Current Population Survey for 2019, US Census Bureau.

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Firm and This chapter overviews the key

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

50% • 35% of firms are S corporations, up six percentage points

• Architecture firms reported an average of three permanent

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

• The share of architecture firm employees that are

*** e.g., CAD manager, IT manager/director

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

• Looking toward the future, staffing makeup will likely

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

9% • Ownership transition plan: 88% of firms with 50 or more

• The top internal practice reported was equitable pay policy,

A staff member dedicated to managing 3%

Established metrics, data collection on inclusive- 3%

— The types of external practices most commonly used by firms

7% — At least half of large firms reported that they use employee

People managers held accountable for equitable and 2%

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Quality Assurance/Quality Control processes

• Of firms with QA/QC processes in place, checklists are included

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Firm billings This chapter reviews the key findings

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

FIGURE 3 . 2 : Despite a modest decline in profitability, architecture firms remain prosperous

• While the stipulated sum (fixed fee) billing method remained

• The median backlog of projects among firms was reported

FI R M SPE CI ALI ZAT I ON

Title: Architecture firms devote an average of 9% of their billable hours to

• 6.1% of billable hours at firms that did pro bono work in

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Marketing and business development

• The percentage of net billings allocated toward direct

• Firms with an institutional specialization reported the

Business loans/bad debt

• Institutional firms, while having a higher net worth, also

• The average amount of bad debt written off by firms

• Firms with a commercial/industrial specialization wrote off

THE A MER ICAN INST I TU TE OF A R CH I T ECT S

Construction This chapter overviews the work

• K-12 education projects continued to trend upward and

Bar chart grouped by housing type

Title: Three quarters of new multifamily housing units designed

Resilient and green projects

— POEs most frequently consisted of contacting the owner